Hot from the Press!

[Calm]

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)?

Any chance anyone here has access to this article on this very topic Greg is referring to and know if it's worthwhile to purchase?:

Over the last four decades Georgetown University psychiatrist Murray Bowen has developed a new theory of human emotional functioning and behavior call family systems theory, which views the family as a naturally occurring system. The theory not only provies new insights into human behavior, but it can contribute to bridging the compartmentalization of knowledge that exists in medicine and the life sciences. Since the theory has roots in the insights of Darwin and Freud, the story of its development begins more than a century ago.

http://www.thebowencenter.org/miva/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=TBC&Product_Code=P-DTF&Category_Code=P

[Dan Vogel]

Greg,

From what I can see, what Goff actually says is a bit more nuanced than that: "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)?

Of course not. Just about any theory coming after Freud is going to have points of contact. But to imply that Family Systems is anything like Freudian psychoanalysis, as Goff does, is misleading. This is especially so in the context of the term “psychohistory,” which by comparison to my use of Family Systems bears no resemblance. Here, Goff by not specifically mentioning Family Systems and blurring the distinction between it and Freudian psychoanalysis is attempting to muddy the waters of my discussion and tap into the current debate in historical circles over so-called psychohistory. It would be instructive to anyone confused by Goff’s and the bothers Hedges’ assertions to actually read psycho-historical works, which can be found on line. They are usually preoccupied with Freudian theory about childhood and psycho-sexual development, the subconscious, oedipal complexes, and the like. I would also contrast my treatment with that of Bill Morain and Robert Anderson, who are decidedly Freudian in their biographies of Joseph Smith.

For my response to the Hedgeses on this matter, see http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/making2.html

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?

Greg, I’m not inclined to do your work for you. If you have specific objections t my treatment, then raise them. But if you want a response to my use of Family Sytems, I’ll mention that Kyle Walker, who is trained in Family Systems, reviewed my book and raised objections. I’m sure you can find it on line at FARMS. However, in my opinion, his objections were more on the use of historical sources than on my use of Family Systems. He mostly objected to my statement about Lucy's admitted periodic bouts with “depression” and Joseph Sr.'s struggle with low self-esteem and “alcoholism.” He also objected to my portrayal of the Smith family as in severe financial, religious, and marital conflict, whereas he has argued, both in his MA thesis and in print, that the Smith family was essentially functional, harmonious, and overcame discord in healthy ways.

[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.]

I did most of my research for my essay "Joseph Smith's Family Dynamics." Sunstone Theological Symposium, Salt Lake City, 30 July 1998, subsequently published in "Joseph Smith’s Family Dynamics." John Whitmer Historical Association Journal 22 (2002): 51-74." I have read other works since that time.

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 don’t claim any expertise in psychology, although I took nearly as many psychology classes in the university as I did history. After reading my book, Jennifer Jones, who is a licensed and practicing therapist and with whom I have had many conversations on the topic, said: “The thing that is impressing me ... is that Vogel integrates the historical info[rmation] with family system theory which is something I embrace” (ZLMB, 17 Aug. 2004). “Vogel seems to have an amazing grasp on family systems theory which IMO [in my opinion] is extremely important in understanding J[oseph] S[mith]” (ZLMB, 16 Aug. 2004).

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. :-)

I never quite understand this popular criticism since we are in the same situation with history in general. No historical conclusions can be verified. History is not a science, any more than psychology is. To demand certainty in either would be positivistic, would it not?

I wonder if you would ask this question of Bushman, who once criticized me for using family systems theory and tried to class me with Brodie and Riley, but finally offered his own thoughts on the subject in an essay titled “The Inner Joseph Smith,” Journal of Mormon History (Spring 2006). In his essay “The Lamanite View of Book of Mormon History,” he admitted that in place it “echoes my two-year postdoctoral study under the tutelage of Erik Erikson, the famous psychoanalyst ...” A look at his 1984 biography of Joseph Smith, as well as his subsequent Rough Stone Rolling, reveals just how inescapable psychology is to biography, especially when once delves into JS’s environment and family.

[Calm]

After reading my book, Jennifer Jones, who is a licensed and practicing therapist...." (ZLMB, 17 Aug. 2004).

When did JJ get her license? I don't remember her ever saying she was a therapist on ZLMB.

add-on: Never mind, figured out you were talking about truthdancer, not JJ.

link to the thread for the quote: http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/topic/7023/t/Dan-Vogel-and-Dan-Peterson-on-TV.html?page=1

[Chris Smith]

For what it's worth, Dan, Richard is quite positive about your work in the class he's teaching on Joseph Smith this semester, and he explicitly defended you in class against claims that you are Freudian.

[Greg Smith]

Greg,

Of course not. Just about any theory coming after Freud is going to have points of contact. But to imply that Family Systems is anything like Freudian psychoanalysis, as Goff does, is misleading. This is especially so in the context of the term

[LifeOnaPlate]

So the BoM reflects a Democrat ideology. It took a Canadian to figure that one out.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Vogel writes:

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.

This is wrong on so many levels.

1: The Book of Mormon is not an autobiographical work by Joseph Smith. It doesn't claim to be Joseph's autobiographical material - in fact he claims that it was not written by him, that it was not about him, and that it doesn't contain the personal details of his life.

2: In a book with as many characters and different perspectives as the Book of Mormon contains, Vogel must decide (having assumed that it contains information related to Joseph's emotional and intellectual world view) which characters and events in the Book of Mormon are representative of Joseph and which are not. This isn't as simple as it might be with a traditional novel, where one or more characters are found consistently throughout the text.

3: We all know that authors can have their characters (at least in fiction) assert things which they do not themselves believe. This means that on some level, Vogel is asserting that Joseph believed the things which the characters in the book are asserting, and not just this, Vogel is picking which characters and which of their views. This is only "mining" in the sense that Vogel is only interested in looking for data which supports his already determined conclusions (while ignoring everything that doesn't).

4: When Vogel talks of "mining" the text, he is really referring to his way of interpreting the text. Since he interprets the text using external references to the alleged author's personal life, he engages in the "intentional fallacy". When this happens, what Vogel is doing isn't discovering Joseph Smith in the Book of Mormon - he has already discovered Joseph Smith, and is simply prooftexting in the Book of Mormon - looking for passages which could be interpreted to match his assumptions about Joseph Smith as the text's alleged author. In this way - contra to his assertion - he is interpreting the Book of Mormon. Some years ago, after a discussion I had with Dan Vogel (here in these forums), Clark made these comments on his blog:

I take back that presumption that Dan Vogel isn't engaging in the intentionality fallacy. He wrote:

I don?t do psychohistory because the BofM tells me what JS believed, felt, and thought. You are wrong to characterize my interpretations as external only.

and

If JS authored the BofM, it is quite likely that he was influenced by his father?s dream when he dictated Lehi?s dream. If he was influenced by his father?s dream when he dictated Lehi?s dream, and changed it from one of family unity to one of family division, then he did it intentionally to convey a certain meaning that it did not have before. If he did it intentionally to convey a certain meaning that it did not have before, then he PROBABLY did it to reflect the division in religion that had occurred in his own family.

and finally

Tell me why I can?t say what I said above. Tell my why I can?t surmise JS?s intentions by reading the book.

This all reminds me of when I was a sophomore taking philosophical writing. The first assignment was to write an analysis of John Donne's "The Flea." Well being the creative sort I went to the library and researched Donne's life and found out about his relationship with his long time love and all the controversy in his life. So I wrote my paper on how "The Flea" was really about Donne's life. Needless to say the professor took me to task on this, pointing out the intentionality fallacy. An author can write something without necessarily writing about what they believe or their life. That's not to say they can't invoke their life. Merely that you are on thin ice if you use a non-autobiographical text to assert something about their thoughts.

While it makes for interesting reading, it really doesn't seem to be either very accurate or very reliable in interpreting the Book of Mormon or in determining that Joseph Smith was its author. Vogel simply creates his own fiction. Those quotes should still be available here in the archives.

Ben M.

[Pahoran]

There are, of course, many ways to read the BOM. My reading began with the assumption that JS was the author,

And, astonishingly, leads right back to that as a conclusion.

Who'da thunk it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Greg Smith]

So the BoM reflects a Democrat ideology. It took a Canadian to figure that one out.

It only took as much creativity as it takes to have Nephi as a great hunter because Joseph's father-in-law was such a great hunter.

Elementary, my dear Life-son.

GLS

[LifeOnaPlate]

haha, awesome

[Dan Vogel]

Greg,

Frankly, though, before reading Goff I thought that some of your treatments had a decided Freudian "edge" to them (not always in the full-blown sense, of course). For example, the Laban/Nephi matter, where you go so far in the endnote as to say that "One might therefore interpret Laban's decapitation as the fulfillment of an oedipal fantasy in slaying an inadequate father and taking his place as family leader, which is a major theme in the story of Nephi and Lehi." (p. 608 n. Slaying the father, father-son rivalry, taking on the father's role, oedipal conflicts, and death (you missed the "with a phallic sword" which would have sealed the deal!) are stock in trade of Freudianism. One gets more of this sort of thing in the main text (p. 135).

I think it

[Dan Vogel]

Hi Ben,

This is wrong on so many levels.

1: The Book of Mormon is not an autobiographical work by Joseph Smith. It doesn't claim to be Joseph's autobiographical material - in fact he claims that it was not written by him, that it was not about him, and that it doesn't contain the personal details of his life.

This begs the question. We know what it claims.

2: In a book with as many characters and different perspectives as the Book of Mormon contains, Vogel must decide (having assumed that it contains information related to Joseph's emotional and intellectual world view) which characters and events in the Book of Mormon are representative of Joseph and which are not. This isn't as simple as it might be with a traditional novel, where one or more characters are found consistently throughout the text.

Well, I don

[LifeOnaPlate]

Only one problem: we know JFK didn

[Dan Vogel]

Actually it shows a few things: One, that parallels may not mean anything at all. The JFK thing doesn't refute your arguments by itself and it isn't to argue that JFK wrote the BoM. Rather, it shows the big problem with taking your approach: you can make things from nothings.

But as to historicity, are you saying your interpretation of the BoM does not cross paths with the historicity of the BoM at all?

I

[William Schryver]

Mr. Vogel:

Both are allied with the father (and favored over older siblings)

What evidence would you cite to suggest that Joseph was

[Droopy]

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.

Of course, if the words written in the BofM are those of other authors, and authors to boot, from other times and cultural contexts, then a search for Joseph Smith's psychological dynamics among the artifacts of the emotional states and psychologies of others, would be an exercise in futility, would it not?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Both make plates

Not that I agree with the persuasiveness or accuracy or comparative relevance of the other parallels you mention, but this one is particularly telling. You are assuming outright that JS made plates. This is wholly a parallel of your own construction.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Of course, if the words written in the BofM are those of other authors, and authors to boot, from other times and cultural contexts, then a search for Joseph Smith's psychological dynamics among the artifacts of the emotional states and psychologies of others, would be an exercise in futility, would it not?

If the investigation looks for parts of the BoM that might have strongly resonated with JS as he translated or later studied the BoM then the exercise would interest me. But that isn't what Dan is claiming. So some of his connections might be interesting. (Though none stick out so far that are entirely compelling, and in some cases Vogel literally invents situations to match the text, ie JS's imaginary quarrels with his brothers and so forth.) But in the end, Vogel's drawn conclusions are questionable because they rely solely on his premise (that is, that JS wrote the book) and do not account for as much information as much of the evidence for ancient authorship does.

[Greg Smith]

Greg,

I think it

[Dan Vogel]

Not that I agree with the persuasiveness or accuracy or comparative relevance of the other parallels you mention, but this one is particularly telling. You are assuming outright that JS made plates. This is wholly a parallel of your own construction.

When you have people casually lifting the plates in a box or covered with a cloth, there are only two possibilities: JS possessed either real gold plates or a set of fake plates. Since I have concluded JS was the author of the BOM, I have also concluded that he made plates. It

[Greg Smith]

I think the similarities between Nephi and JS are strong.

...Both make plates...

Not a true parallel.

Nephi's were gold/golden. Everyone knows that Joseph's were of tin at best.

:-)

Now THAT'S history!

Greg

[Greg Smith]

When you have people casually lifting the plates in a box or covered with a cloth, there are only two possibilities: JS possessed either real gold plates or a set of fake plates. Since I have concluded JS was the author of the BOM, I have also concluded that he made plates. It

[LifeOnaPlate]

When you have people casually lifting the plates in a box or covered with a cloth, there are only two possibilities: JS possessed either real gold plates or a set of fake plates. Since I have concluded JS was the author of the BOM, I have also concluded that he made plates. It

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan Vogel writes:

This begs the question. We know what it claims.

It doesn't beg the question at all. If anything, assuming that Joseph Smith wrote the text (contra his claims of authorship) and then go looking to prove this by interpreting the text assuming that he wrote fits the bill for "begging the question". In effect, your claim is that Joseph is lying about the text. And then you want to suggest that in his authoring it, he creates all of these details (intentionally, I might add - and yes, you do use that word), which tell us that Joseph Smith was its author. I am not begging the question.

Well, I don

[Benjamin McGuire]

I