Hot from the Press!

[LifeOnaPlate]

Ironic how you end doing just what you criticize me doing?

I don't think that fits the definition of "ironic." Odd that I already pointed out the shortcoming of my analysis of your message board posts though at the end. Odder still that you seem to be able to recognize it when it happens to you but not when you do it to others.

Still, you have a lot more material to work with from Goff than I do with you in this thread. And you still haven't. See below.

Just to clarify, I'm not attempting to critique Goff's entire essay, just the beginning 15 pages of his calling me a positivist and building arguments based on that, which he has done at other times. I say this is ad hominem, but you have done nothing to show otherwise.

That's just it, you haven't demonstrated that Goff has even done this, and further, that what he has done misrepresented your position in any way. Why should I show "otherwise" when I would have to first show "wise" since "wise" hasn't been shown for me to show "otherwise"?

[Dan Vogel]

I don't think that fits the definition of "ironic." Odd that I already pointed out the shortcoming of my analysis of your message board posts though at the end. Odder still that you seem to be able to recognize it when it happens to you but not when you do it to others.

Still, you have a lot more material to work with from Goff than I do with you in this thread. And you still haven't. See below.

That's just it, you haven't demonstrated that Goff has even done this, and further, that what he has done misrepresented your position in any way. Why should I show "otherwise" when I would have to first show "wise" since "wise" hasn't been shown for me to show "otherwise"?

I came in on the discussion when you and Chris were discussing Goff’s calling me a positivist to categorically dismiss my work. This is how Chris characterized the implied argument in Goff’s approach to previous essays. I merely added that this was not only annoying, but also a logical fallacy. I have made it clear that I wasn’t commenting on every aspect of his critique. You have already admitted that Goff spends a great deal of time trying of pin the label of positivist on me while at the same time dismissing the whole category, but have argued that it’s legitimate methodology. Even now you want me to prove that I’m not a positivist in order for my complaint of logical fallacy to be valid. I don’t have to do that. The thing about logical fallacies is that you don’t have to respond to them.

[Dan Vogel]

Dan has long struggled in his understanding of this most basic of logical fallacies.

I think it would be best, at this juncture, to simply permit him to remain, without further correction, firmly ensconced in his misconceptions.

As we can see, you know the ad hominem fallacy well.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I came in on the discussion when you and Chris were discussing Goff?s calling me a positivist to categorically dismiss my work. This is how Chris characterized the implied argument in Goff?s approach to previous essays. I merely added that this was not only annoying, but also a logical fallacy. I have made it clear that I wasn?t commenting on every aspect of his critique. You have already admitted that Goff spends a great deal of time trying of pin the label of positivist on me while at the same time dismissing the whole category, but have argued that it?s legitimate methodology. Even now you want me to prove that I?m not a positivist in order for my complaint of logical fallacy to be valid. I don?t have to do that. The thing about logical fallacies is that you don?t have to respond to them.

I think you have misunderstood me and I am sorry if I have been unclear. My position is this: focusing on the labels rather than the points is not adequately following Goff. I don't agree, then, with Chris, and I don't agree that Goff committed a giant logical fallacy that frees you from responding to his work.

[LifeOnaPlate]

As we can see, you know the ad hominem fallacy well.

It should be noted that an ad hominem argument does not equal a false argument.

[William Schryver]

As we can see, you know the ad hominem fallacy well.

As I also know what it isn't.

That, of course, has always been your challenge, going back several years. You and I had a discussion very similar to this one, oh ... about three or so years ago. I will say this: you are consistent in your misconceptions about what types of argumentation you can shoehorn into the relatively narrow correct definition of the ad hominem logical fallacy.

Nevertheless, I'll now leave you and Blair to your little discussion. I have to get back to crafting a set of metallic plates to fool my friends and family into believing I see angels. I'm going for pewter. There's just something about pewter that's always done it for me ...

[Dan Vogel]

I think you have misunderstood me and I am sorry if I have been unclear. My position is this: focusing on the labels rather than the points is not adequately following Goff. I don't agree, then, with Chris, and I don't agree that Goff committed a giant logical fallacy that frees you from responding to his work.

Of course I don't think I'm free from responding to his essays. I plan to do just that. But I don't have to respond to his accusations of positivism, because it's irrelevant to the strength or weakness of my evidence, arguments, and interpretations. What Goff fails to understand is that much of what I wrote about BOM in my JS biography is not written in the context of the ancient vs. modern debate, yet he persists to criticize my interpretations in that context. Interpretation of texts isn't designed to resolve historicity issues. Other things about the text--such as historical and literary anachronisms and internal contradictions--are better suited. If he wants to raise historicity issues, he should focus on those aspects of my treatment.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Of course I don't think I'm free from responding to his essays. I plan to do just that. But I don't have to respond to his accusations of positivism, because it's irrelevant to the strength or weakness of my evidence, arguments, and interpretations. What Goff fails to understand is that much of what I wrote about BOM in my JS biography is not written in the context of the ancient vs. modern debate, yet he persists to criticize my interpretations in that context. Interpretation of texts isn't designed to resolve historicity issues. Other things about the text--such as historical and literary anachronisms and internal contradictions--are better suited. If he wants to raise historicity issues, he should focus on those aspects of my treatment.

The very venture raises questions about historicity. It is inescapable. Even in trying to "suspend" the issue one is making a declaration about it. And I think your position that the Book of Mormon was basically the product of Joseph Smith's psyche and environment is inherently an interpretation involving historicity.

[Dan Vogel]

The latest number of the FARMS Review continues to provide the stimulating, insightful writing that its aficionados -- "our reader," as we Review editors affectionately call them -- have come to expect (and that our more fevered critics continue to despise and dread).

Kevin Barney, a practicing attorney in Illinois with a degree in ancient languages who has himself contributed significantly to Mormon studies, carefully examines John W. Welch's The Legal Cases of the Book of Mormon and pronounces it "a seminal work." Duane Boyce reflects on the law of consecration, and questions whether a particular contemporary political ideology can truly be seen as its modern, secular equivalent or demand our loyalty as Latter-day Saints. Donald L. Enders and Jennifer L. Lund review a faith-promoting account of the first printing of the Book of Mormon, but come away unpersuaded. Latter-day Saint philosopher James Faulconer, however, is very impressed by Brant A. Gardner's six-volume Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon.

Brant Gardner himself appears in the pages of the Review with an essay on "Mormon's Editorial Method and Meta-Message." The distinguished Latter-day Saint scholar Terryl Givens also contributes an essay, from his forthcoming Oxford University Press volume The Book of Mormon: A Very Short Introduction. Alan Goff, too, weighs in with a characteristically insightful and thought-provoking piece entitled "How Should We Then Read? Reading Scripture after the Fall," which points to the inadequacies of the approach taken to the Book of Mormon by such reductionist critics as Dan Vogel. Anthropologist Steven Olsen offers a "literary approach" to the account of the death of Laban in 1 Nephi. Another valuable essay, entitled "We Might Know What to Do and How to Do It: On the Usefulness of the Religious Past," comes from Martin Marty, the eminent University of Chicago historian of American religion. And associate Review editor Louis Midgley considers the subject of "The Book of Mormon as Record" in a short essay that introduces the Review?s other pieces on the ancient Nephite text. Finally, in separate articles briefly introduced by Review associate editor George Mitton, Frederick M. Huchel and John W. Welch respond warmly to British Methodist scholar Margaret Barker's Temple Themes in Christian Worship.

Get yours while supplies last!

.

Dan,

Can you tell me when this issue of the FARMS Review (vol. 21, No. 2?) will be available at the BYU bookstore?

[Kevin Christensen]

This thread's focus thus far on who is or is not a positivist, or who does or does not fling ad hominem has overlooked what I see as the most important substance of Alan Goff's work. His approach to reading revolutionized my own. Here is an illustrative extract from Goff's essay in FARMS Review 17:2, in response to Dan Vogel's book Joseph Smith: The Making of Prophet.

I will provide a few examples to demonstrate Vogel's desiccated readings of the Book of Mormon alongside alternative readings that bring literary competence to the text. The Mormon scripture tells of the priests of Noah who escaped, fleeing from their own people, leaving their wives and children behind to save their own lives. The priests later lay in wait, abducting Lamanite girls to be their new wives. Here is Vogel's account of the story: "Noah's priests escape into the wilderness. Two years later, they resurface to capture twenty-four Lamanite women, carrying them into the wilderness to become their wives (19:29; 20:1?26)" ( Vogel Making of a Prophet p. 193). The following is the analysis Vogel devotes to this story, attempting to make a parallel to Joseph Smith's life:

?Ironically, the priests have won over the Lamanites because they abducted Lamanite women to be their wives. Still, Smith would understand this situation, having eloped with Emma, who thereafter was the only thing standing between him and Isaac's wrath. From Isaac's point of view, Joseph, within two years of having met Emma (cf. 19:29), had sneaked back into town and "stolen" his daughter. In pleading with the Lamanite army for their husbands, the Lamanite women reveal that they are no longer captives but voluntary wives. Emma had done likewise with Joseph. Thus, through marriage, former enemies became uncomfortable allies.? (Vogel p. 194)

Sometimes, one must point out the obvious. Abduction is not the same thing as eloping. Vogel's parallelomaniac comparison between Joseph Smith and this episode from the Book of Mormon does not even have the most basic element in common. (Alan Goff, ?Dan Vogel's Family Romance and the Book of Mormon as Smith Family Allegory? in FARMS Review 17/2, p 357-8.)

Goff then discusses his own published reading of the same story, and surveys more recent scholarship on the topic of ?abuduction to marriage? stories in the ancient world.

After listing a range of Greco-Roman stories containing the abduction-marriage motif,[94] Susan Ackerman highlights the common features between the biblical and Greek stories: (1) the abducted maidens are participating in cultic dancing, (2) the girls' youth is emphasized, (3) the ambush has "an element of prurience,"[95] of older men's erotic gaze at girls, (4) the kidnapping violates the normal processes of conveying a girl from father to husband, and (5) the girls dance in a liminal space on the boundary between city and wilderness, culture and nature.[96] The Book of Mormon story includes these characteristic Mediterranean kidnapping elements: (1) the Lamanite girls gather to sing and dance at a particular place (Mosiah 20:1); (2) the girls are always referred to as the "daughters of the Lamanites" (Mosiah 20:1, 4?6) and only when the Amulonites are discovered later by the Lamanites does the terminology shift to include the title "wives" (Mosiah 23:33?34); (3) the wicked priests are older, already having wives and children they have abandoned (Mosiah 20:3), and they "laid and watched" the dancing girls (Mosiah 20:4); (4) the theft violates the standard procedure of conveying girls to husbands, so the Lamanites attack the Zeniffites in the mistaken belief that they are the kidnappers (Mosiah 20:6), and later those daughters must intervene with their fathers so that the latter do not "destroy their husbands" when discovered (Mosiah 23:33?34); and (5) we cannot know much about the place the girls dance, but it is in the Lamanite land of Shemlon (Mosiah 20:1) where the priests of Amulon "tarried in the wilderness" (Mosiah 20:4). Shemlon was also the Lamanite land bordering the Zeniffite territory (Mosiah 10:7; 11:12; 19:6). The eastern Levantine stories of abduction marriage fit a pattern shared by the Israelite and Book of Mormon narratives. These connections should increase, not decrease, respect for the text. Only a superficial reading can have the opposite result.

Additionally, Vogel's comparison of Emma and Joseph's elopement to the abduction of the Lamanite girls makes no psychological sense. If Smith wrote this story, then he would be identifying himself subconsciously in Mosiah's narrative as a kidnapper and rapist. The priests of Amulon are not portrayed heroically, admirably, or even neutrally in the Book of Mormon story. Vogel sees Smith creating a lot of alter egos for himself in the Book of Mormon: Mormon (pp. 118, 326?28), Nephi (pp. 132, 134?35), Mosiah (p. 166), Andrew Jackson/Captain Moroni (p. 249), and Samuel the Lamanite (p. 284). In all these instances, Vogel projects these figures as Smith's alter egos because they are portrayed heroically, as a kind of fantasy fulfillment for a young Joseph Smith. So this identification of the priests of Noah as stand-ins for Smith would go against the grain of even Vogel's own interpretive principles. These kidnappers are scoundrels who abandon their original wives and children to abduct new wives and start a new life. Later they align themselves with the Lamanites to oppress and enslave a group of Nephites. (Goff, 361-2).

Incidentally, in my own reading of the story of Amulon's priests, I see the author of Mosiah as making conscious allusions to the story of the Fallen Angels in 1 Enoch.

Goff concludes his discussion by noting the important differences between the formal type scene elements essential to the Book of Mormon stories those widespread in the ancient world.

Vogel's story of Emma and Joseph's elopement does not involve an abduction, does not have nubile maidens group dancing in a liminal area to celebrate a cultic rite, does not have older men watching pruriently (Joseph was younger than Emma, and Emma was of adult age), does not have outraged fathers and brothers vowing to kill the abductors, does not have daughters pleading for their husband's/abductor's lives, does not have the details that connect the Book of Mormon story to Old World antecedents. Vogel's parallel is superficial, avoiding any descent into particulars. (Goff, 363).

Goff's essay goes on for another 37 pages after this, offering analyses of Vogel's Book of Mormon readings versus his own. His discussion of positivism and the impact of author ideology is a prelude to a detailed examination of evidence. He invites readers not to dismiss Vogel on the basis of labels applied, but in consideration of which readings are ultimately better. The discussion of theory is background to help understand why. More than half of the essay is devoted to demonstrations of those theories as they visibly emerge in the readings.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park PA

[LifeOnaPlate]

Goff's essay goes on for another 37 pages after this, offering analyses of Vogel's Book of Mormon readings versus his own. His discussion of positivism and the impact of author ideology is a prelude to a detailed examination of evidence. He invites readers not to dismiss Vogel on the basis of labels applied, but in consideration of which readings are ultimately better. The discussion of theory is background to help understand why. More than half of the essay is devoted to demonstrations of those theories as they visibly emerge in the readings.

Right on. By repeatedly asking Dan for specifics I hoped to see his response to Goff's specific comparisons. I believe the focus on positivists and labels and so forth does not accurately account for Goff's overall and best arguments.

[Chris Smith]

Kevin,

Like you, I believe that Dan goes too far in appealing to Joseph's psychology as an explanation for so much of the Book of Mormon. However, I also believe that Goff goes too far in devaluing Dan's contibutions. This results from an overly-literal reading of Dan's argument, one for which I can hardly blame Goff since on my first reading I largely read Dan the same way.

For example, when interpreting the dream of Joseph Smith, Sr. in which Sr. sees a great chasm separating him from Jesus, Dan says that this symbolizes the chasm between him and Lucy. This struck me as positively outrageous when I read it, since the chasm between us and Jesus is such a standard Christian metaphor for sin and alienation from God. I rejected Vogel's explanation entirely.

However, a long time afterward I came to see value in Vogel's interpretation-- not in the sense that it is the total or conscious meaning of the dream, but in the sense that it is the underlying family dynamic toward which the dream points us. Joseph Smith, Sr., as a universalist, had little use for an image of a chasm between him and Jesus. This was revivalist imagery of the kind he mostly disparaged. But Lucy was pretty solidly in the revivalists' and evangelicals' camp, and earnestly pressured her husband to adopt her views. He made some concessions to her but was prevented from making a full commitment both by his own skepticism and by the influence of his universalist father, brother, and eldest son. Sr. likely would not have been so tormented by this theological issue if not for the tension it caused between him and his wife. So to a certain degree, it's fair to say that the chasm in his dream signalled a chasm in his family. We just should not exaggerate this meaning of it.

In the same way, I think that the bride-kidnapping tale Kevin refers to is almost certainly chiefly due to the influence of Judges 21:8-25 rather than to psychological or familial concerns in Joseph's own life. However, this does not exclude the possibility that Joseph told the story the way he did partly because of his own experience in eloping with Emma. No author writes without being influenced subconsciously by his own experiences and presuppositions, and so in a naturalistic reading of the Book of Mormon it is inevitable that we will find traces of Joseph's experiences in the narrative. Dan perhaps exaggerates these traces, but I also don't see him arguing for the kind of conscious, explicit, one-to-one correspondence that Goff argues against. That there are substantial differences does not exclude the possibility that the story was influenced by Joseph's psychology in some aspects. Thus, ironically, Goff's reading of Vogel is as unnuanced and reductive as he makes Vogel's reading of the Book of Mormon out to be.

In short, Goff makes some good points, but ultimately goes much too far.

-Chris

[Pahoran]

Kevin,

Like you, I believe that Dan goes too far in appealing to Joseph's psychology as an explanation for so much of the Book of Mormon. However, I also believe that Goff goes too far in devaluing Dan's contibutions. This results from an overly-literal reading of Dan's argument, one for which I can hardly blame Goff since on my first reading I largely read Dan the same way.

For example, when interpreting the dream of Joseph Smith, Sr. in which Sr. sees a great chasm separating him from Jesus, Dan says that this symbolizes the chasm between him and Lucy. This struck me as positively outrageous when I read it, since the chasm between us and Jesus is such a standard Christian metaphor for sin and alienation from God. I rejected Vogel's explanation entirely.

You got that right.

However, a long time afterward I came to see value in Vogel's interpretation-- not in the sense that it is the total or conscious meaning of the dream, but in the sense that it is the underlying family dynamic toward which the dream points us. Joseph Smith, Sr., as a universalist, had little use for an image of a chasm between him and Jesus. This was revivalist imagery of the kind he mostly disparaged. But Lucy was pretty solidly in the revivalists' and evangelicals' camp, and earnestly pressured her husband to adopt her views. He made some concessions to her but was prevented from making a full commitment both by his own skepticism and by the influence of his universalist father, brother, and eldest son. Sr. likely would not have been so tormented by this theological issue if not for the tension it caused between him and his wife. So to a certain degree, it's fair to say that the chasm in his dream signalled a chasm in his family. We just should not exaggerate this meaning of it.

Such as -- by pretending it actually reflects anything in the text? By imagining it to be a product of anything other than your and Vogel's shared wishful thinking?

In the same way, I think that the bride-kidnapping tale Kevin refers to is almost certainly chiefly due to the influence of Judges 21:8-25 rather than to psychological or familial concerns in Joseph's own life. However, this does not exclude the possibility that Joseph told the story the way he did partly because of his own experience in eloping with Emma. No author writes without being influenced subconsciously by his own experiences and presuppositions, and so in a naturalistic reading of the Book of Mormon it is inevitable that we will find traces of Joseph's experiences in the narrative. Dan perhaps exaggerates these traces, but I also don't see him arguing for the kind of conscious, explicit, one-to-one correspondence that Goff argues against. That there are substantial differences does not exclude the possibility that the story was influenced by Joseph's psychology in some aspects. Thus, ironically, Goff's reading of Vogel is as unnuanced and reductive as he makes Vogel's reading of the Book of Mormon out to be.

I can see why you would want it to be that way. But I point you to Vogel's own words on the subject:

Ironically, the priests have won over the Lamanites because they abducted Lamanite women to be their wives. Still, Smith would understand this situation, having eloped with Emma, who thereafter was the only thing standing between him and Isaac's wrath. From Isaac's point of view, Joseph, within two years of having met Emma (cf. 19:29), had sneaked back into town and "stolen" his daughter. In pleading with the Lamanite army for their husbands, the Lamanite women reveal that they are no longer captives but voluntary wives. Emma had done likewise with Joseph. Thus, through marriage, former enemies became uncomfortable allies. (Vogel p. 194)

You are at all times free to read as many non-reductionist nuances into Vogel's attempt to show "conscious, explicit, one-to-one correspondence" as you please.

But don't blame Goff for seeing what is actually there.

In short, Goff makes some good points, but ultimately goes much too far.

-Chris

All the way to accuracy, in fact.

Regards,

Pahoran

[John Williams]

You are at all times free to read as many non-reductionist nuances into Vogel's attempt to show "conscious, explicit, one-to-one correspondence" as you please.

But don't blame Goff for seeing what is actually there.

Hmmm. I've read the offending passage several times, and I'm not seeing "conscious, explicit, one-to-one correspondence." Vogel's statement does not preclude the Lamanite abduction story from being an unconscious, inexplicit correspondence.

[Chris Smith]

I've read the offending passage several times, and I'm not seeing "conscious, explicit, one-to-one correspondence."

How could you read the phrase, "Smith would understand the situation" any other way??

[Greg Smith]

Right on. By repeatedly asking Dan for specifics I hoped to see his response to Goff's specific comparisons. I believe the focus on positivists and labels and so forth does not accurately account for Goff's overall and best arguments.

And, it seems to me that what Goff attempts is not to simply say "Vogel is a positivist and so should be ignored." Instead, he tries to demonstrate in what ways Vogel's reading is positivistic. Having demonstrated this, if one can also demonstrate that positivism is flawed or inadequate (no difficult task), it is quite proper to point out that Vogel has been shown/demonstrated/argued to be a positivist. Now, one might be WRONG about that classification, but it isn't ad hominem. It is simply a failure to read Vogel properly.

It's rather like saying, "Division by zero is forbidden in mathematics. Smith uses division by zero here, here, and here in his proof. Smith's use of a forbidden mathematics technique means that his arguments are not to be trusted on mathematics grounds."

Or, because I believe Freudianism to be mostly bunk, if someone demonstrates (not merely asserts) to me that an argument has its roots in Freudianism, that greatly undermines (for me, anyway) the cogency of their argument, because I think that Freudianism is a poor foundation upon which to build anything of intellectual consequence.

Obviously, discussions of positivism are not so clear-cut as these examples, but none of them strikes me as _ad hominem_. The point is not that being a positivist is bad; the point is that one's errors or misapprehensions can often be explained (after the fact, once they have been identified) when one understands the ideological or cognitive biases that produced them. If such errors cannot be demonstrated, then such a demonstration adds little (i.e., a valid syllogism is valid no matter what the reason for which it is altered; an invalid syllogism is often interesting precisely because the reason for which it is invalid can often be traced to the agenda at work in the author).

But, it still strikes me that saying "so-and-so uses ad hominem" without demonstrating the presence of said ad hominem is a classic example of the ad hominem fallacy--because it is a statement about the person's trustworthiness that is not backed by evidence, and so may only represent one's opinion of the speaker, and not his arguments. One must demonstrate that his arguments rely on this fallacy before fetching the Scarlet A .

[LifeOnaPlate]

And, it seems to me that what Goff attempts is not to simply say "Vogel is a positivist and so should be ignored." Instead, he tries to demonstrate in what ways Vogel's reading is positivistic. Having demonstrated this, if one can also demonstrate that positivism is flawed or inadequate (no difficult task), it is quite proper to point out that Vogel has been shown/demonstrated/argued to be a positivist. Now, one might be WRONG about that classification, but it isn't ad hominem. It is simply a failure to read Vogel properly.

Precisely.

Obviously, discussions of positivism are not so clear-cut as these examples, but none of them strikes me as _ad hominem_. The point is not that being a positivist is bad; the point is that one's errors or misapprehensions can often be explained (after the fact, once they have been identified) when one understands the ideological or cognitive biases that produced them. If such errors cannot be demonstrated, then such a demonstration adds little (i.e., a valid syllogism is valid no matter what the reason for which it is altered; an invalid syllogism is often interesting precisely because the reason for which it is invalid can often be traced to the agenda at work in the author).

Bingo. Hence, the "ad hominem" brush-off is just that, a brush-off.

But, it still strikes me that saying "so-and-so uses ad hominem" without demonstrating the presence of said ad hominem is a classic example of the ad hominem fallacy--because it is a statement about the person's trustworthiness that is not backed by evidence, and so may only represent one's opinion of the speaker, and not his arguments. One must demonstrate that his arguments rely on this fallacy before fetching the Scarlet A .

Yes, and when I pointed this out to Dan he provided a wikipedia article explaining the fallacy, along with a hypothetical comment about a Governor's tax proposals.

[Dan Vogel]

This thread's focus thus far on who is or is not a positivist, or who does or does not fling ad hominem has overlooked what I see as the most important substance of Alan Goff's work. His approach to reading revolutionized my own. Here is an illustrative extract from Goff's essay in FARMS Review 17:2, in response to Dan Vogel's book Joseph Smith: The Making of Prophet.

Goff then discusses his own published reading of the same story, and surveys more recent scholarship on the topic of ?abuduction to marriage? stories in the ancient world.

Incidentally, in my own reading of the story of Amulon's priests, I see the author of Mosiah as making conscious allusions to the story of the Fallen Angels in 1 Enoch.

Goff concludes his discussion by noting the important differences between the formal type scene elements essential to the Book of Mormon stories those widespread in the ancient world.

Goff's essay goes on for another 37 pages after this, offering analyses of Vogel's Book of Mormon readings versus his own. His discussion of positivism and the impact of author ideology is a prelude to a detailed examination of evidence. He invites readers not to dismiss Vogel on the basis of labels applied, but in consideration of which readings are ultimately better. The discussion of theory is background to help understand why. More than half of the essay is devoted to demonstrations of those theories as they visibly emerge in the readings.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park PA

Kevin,

Thanks for your comments. You bring up an example that I think illustrates where Goff misses the point. In this instance I?m not drawing parallels to prove the BOM was written by JS. I?ve already decided that based on historical and literary anachronisms. If Goff wishes to argue about historicity, he should deal with those parts of my discussion?not the interpretive parts.

You well know that any interpretation that begins with the assumption of either ancient or modern will tend to beg the question, and any intertextuality we see could very well be our own invention. Personally, I think parallels to the Mound Builder Myth are stronger than any ancient parallels brought forward by apologists, but I wouldn?t claim the parallels are the result of intertextuality, unless one includes culture in the definition of text.

The relevance of Greco-Roman stories containing the abduction-marriage motifs to the BOM remains unproven. Were these scattered stories genetically related, or invented independently? Just because scholars study these stories as a group doesn?t mean there was a formula for writing such stories floating around the ancient world, pick up by Lehi and Nephi, and handed down through at least several hundred years of Nephite history. And what is Goff saying about the BOM? Does he suggest that the BOM story didn?t really happen, that it is a myth borrowed from the ancient world? Or that a similar event occurred, but that it was made to conform to a well-known motif?

While Goff thinks my interpretation violates the obvious difference between eloping and abduction, his examples do not distinguish between abduction/rape stories and abduction/marriage stories. Where in the BOM story is rape? Prior to dictating this story, JS was accused by Isaac Hale of sealing his Emma, and as late as 1838, Joseph Smith found it necessary to answer the question, ?Did not Jo Smith steal his wife?? (EMD 1:53).

My book is an interpretive biography based on the assumption that JS wrote it. So, in my view, to continue a competition over who has the best or closest parallels is beside the point. Moreover, my main purpose was to suggest possible ways JS and first readers of the BOM could read the text. Note that in this section of my commentary, I do not argue that the story proves JS was author, only that JS could have identified with the story, having been accused of stealing his wife, although he didn?t, and that his marriage to Emma protected him from Isaac?s wrath. The story doesn?t have to be exact for him to have identified with it either. Unlike Goff, because I?m not using the story to prove modern origin, I don?t need one-to-one correspondence. This is why I think he?s off the mark, and apparently bent on plugging his postmodern approach into old apologetic.

[Pahoran]

Goff's essay is now online.

I have read it. It does not mention positivism in connection with Vogel, so I regret that that escape hatch is no longer open. Rather, it simply takes the measure of what Chris lauds as Vogel's "contribution" and shows it to be nothing more than "an impoverished reading" based upon a "hermeneutic of suspicion."

It gives compelling reasons why the Book of Mormon ought to be read more thoughtfully and attentively; and leads, rather inevitably in my view, to the conclusion that those who rely upon a Vogelesque "impoverished reading" merely impoverish themselves.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LifeOnaPlate]

You well know that any interpretation that begins with the assumption of either ancient or modern will tend to beg the question, and any intertextuality we see could very well be our own invention. Personally, I think parallels to the Mound Builder Myth are stronger than any ancient parallels brought forward by apologists, but I wouldn?t claim the parallels are the result of intertextuality, unless one includes culture in the definition of text.

First, your Mound Builder myth stuff has been countered effectively by Kevin Christensen and you have yet to respond fully to his critique. Instead, your response seemed to miss Kevin's actual point.

Second, your attempts to label Goff as nothing but postmodernism fall short. Goff uses literary analysis and some ideas that have also been found in postmodernist theory, but you treat postmodernism as though it is a school of thought, and a singular one at that, and in so doing misrepresent both Goff and postmodernism.

[Chris Smith]

It gives compelling reasons why the Book of Mormon ought to be read more thoughtfully and attentively; and leads, rather inevitably in my view, to the conclusion that those who rely upon a Vogelesque "impoverished reading" merely impoverish themselves.

Funny how we're supposed to read the Book of Mormon thoughtfully and attentively but we don't owe Dan the same courtesy. No surprise, I suppose, given the agenda-laden nature of Goff's enterprise.

[Dan Vogel]

Goff's essay is now online.

I have read it. It does not mention positivism in connection with Vogel, so I regret that that escape hatch is no longer open. Rather, it simply takes the measure of what Chris lauds as Vogel's "contribution" and shows it to be nothing more than "an impoverished reading" based upon a "hermeneutic of suspicion."

It gives compelling reasons why the Book of Mormon ought to be read more thoughtfully and attentively; and leads, rather inevitably in my view, to the conclusion that those who rely upon a Vogelesque "impoverished reading" merely impoverish themselves.

Regards,

Pahoran

There are, of course, many ways to read the BOM. My reading began with the assumption that JS was the author, and I was attempting to mine it for possible insight into JS?s emotional and intellectual world view. I was writing a biography of JS, not a commentary on the BOM.

The details Goff sees in the BOM are largely brought there by his comparisons to ancient motifs, which are worthless if the BOM is modern. In my view, Goff isn?t so much offering a better reading of the BOM as he is playing the old apologetic game of who has the best parallels, only that it is wrapped up in postmodern garb. Goff assumes that whoever has the most or best parallels also has the best reading of the text, which isn?t necessarily true.

My previous discussion of Goff?s accusations of positivism was in response to Chris?s comments about Goff?s first review. In the second review, there is still too much focus on author and not on arguments and interpretations. He spends a great deal of time talking about ideological commitments and the like, which is no different than his positivist preoccupations. Ironically, his plea for a closer reading of the BOM is coupled with a superficial reading of my book. He thinks, for example, ?Vogel believes that a central key to understanding the Book of Mormon is Freudian psychoanalysis of family relationships.? I responded to this assertion in my response to the Hedges brothers. I did not use Freudian psychoanalysis, but rather my approach was informed by Family Systems Theory. Another irony is that Goff uses the same psycho-social or biographical approach to my book that I used for the BOM.

[Greg Smith]

He thinks, for example, ?Vogel believes that a central key to understanding the Book of Mormon is Freudian psychoanalysis of family relationships.? I responded to this assertion in my response to the Hedges brothers. I did not use Freudian psychoanalysis, but rather my approach was informed by Family Systems Theory. Another irony is that Goff uses the same psycho-social or biographical approach to my book that I used for the BOM.

From what I can see, what Goff actually says is a bit more nuanced than tha: "Vogel believes that a central key to understanding the Book of Mormon is Freudian psychoanalysis of family relationships and recent developments from Freudian theory." [emphasis added]

Are you claiming there is no relation, parallel concepts, or points of contact between "Family Systems Theory" and Freudian psychoanalysis (in either its initial or later incarnations)? Which branch(es) of "Family Systems Theory" do you believe to be applicable? What texts would you regard as the necessary foundation for such work? Are there any contrary views to those upon which you have relied?

[if these are cited in your book, you can point me to page numbers; I own it--I note p. 571 n. 59. Any others? I notice you don't cite anything after 1988. Why is this? That's 20 years ago--15 years before your book's publication.]

==

What training or education do you have in Family Systems Theory that would permit its application to the living, much less the dead ? And, do you see FST as a monolith, or are there branches or school(s) of thought you feel more useful than others? How did you arrive at these decisions and conclusions?

I ask because I have some training and experience in this area. And, I'm always amazed at those who are more able and insightful with dead people than I seem to be with live ones. :-) Of course, dead folks don't talk back, and therapeutic failure is less obvious. On the downside, one can't bill the dead. :-)

Greg

[LifeOnaPlate]

There are, of course, many ways to read the BOM. My reading began with the assumption that JS was the author, and I was attempting to mine it for possible insight into JS?s emotional and intellectual world view. I was writing a biography of JS, not a commentary on the BOM.

OK, if we grant this we still see that by citing specific examples, Goff shows how your assumptions result in a comparatively impoverished reading.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Funny how we're supposed to read the Book of Mormon thoughtfully and attentively but we don't owe Dan the same courtesy. No surprise, I suppose, given the agenda-laden nature of Goff's enterprise.

Are we supposed to read this comment attentively, or should we simply point out your own apologetic-laden approach to the issue? You've yet to show any actual problems with Goff's essay. Calling it apologetic as a pejorative doesn't count.