Hot from the Press!

[wenglund]

Greg and Ben,

I just wanted you both to know that your posts here in response to brother Vogel have been very enlightening and, I believe, spot-on. And, while I doubt that it will sway Vogel and others who agree with him (similar points have been driven home for years on internet boards like this and in print, to no apparent avail, though not always with such clarity and force as you both bring to bear), it has helped to improve how I read the Book of Mormon. I now take more care not to unintentionally impose my own thinking onto the book, but am more intent on letting it speak to me as if from the dust.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Dan Vogel]

Obviously, all it takes to determine authorship of a work of fiction is to show that there is a resemblance between one of the many characters in the book, and the proposed author, right?

Again, this is nonsense. We can find dozens of sets of parallels between characters in a work of fiction and real people - but does this make the real people the authors of that work of fiction?

Ben McGuire

This argument is nonsense. You keep missing the point, Ben, I

[Dan Vogel]

Also inescapable, on these premises, is the conclusion that Joseph was able to construct said set of faked plates with enough skill and fakery to convince a set of witnesses that they were:

a> gold

b> ancient

c> cunningly engraved, etc.

And, they were willing to die for it.

Is there ANY evidence that Joseph had this kind of tin-smithing skill? If so, why the (#*$# were the Smiths losing their farm and living hand-to-mouth when Joseph was a skilled craftsman? Couldn't he have made more money with this kind of work than splitting rails, clearing woods, or selling cakes and beer at public gatherings? Where did he pick up these amazing skills? From whom?

Talk about a waste of talent.

Greg

If you read more of my book, you woud know that I argue that the eight witnesses never saw the plates uncovered, that they lifted them in a box or cloth covering, but saw them spiritually. But that's another debate.

[Greg Smith]

If you read more of my book, you woud know that I argue that the eight witnesses never saw the plates uncovered, that they lifted them in a box or cloth covering, but saw them spiritually. But that's another debate.

Oh, I know you hold this view (against evidence like the statement of the eight witnesses).

For your model to work, you would have to--it's inescapable. Evidence be damned.

(Why any contemporaries would be impressed with a witness that they held something covered in a cloth or box is beyond me. This requires a certain idiocy on the part of their contemporaries that I would have expected people to jump on.)

Greg

[LifeOnaPlate]

If you read more of my book, you woud know that I argue that the eight witnesses never saw the plates uncovered, that they lifted them in a box or cloth covering, but saw them spiritually. But that's another debate.

Right. And it is only tenable by dismissing the actual statements of the witnesses. That they said black was white and up was down and that square is circle.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan Vogel writes:

This argument is nonsense. You keep missing the point, Ben, I

[LifeOnaPlate]

Dan Vogel writes:It's not nonsense Dan, and this isn't all that you are doing. Let me quote something you said here in this thread just recently:

Do you see the incongruity here? This isn't a parallel. You are using something from the text to fill in an apparent gap in the "historical record". It is true that you have already decided a great deal about Joseph Smith - and where the historical record doesn't actually back it up, you invent it entirely out of book which you believe is a piece of Joseph Smith authored fiction. This is fantasy on your part.

Ben M.

That example doesn't stand alone, either; his entire reading of the BoM and JS is shot through with such "connections."

Vogel wrote:

[Greg Smith]

That example doesn't stand alone, either; his entire reading of the BoM and JS is shot through with such "connections."

And, to bring the issue full circle, this is why the use of something like Family Systems theory is, in a sense, irrelevant to my concerns.

Family Systems theory won't tell you how to read texts in these ways, or plumb the subconscious or unexpressed motives, feelings, or emotions of an "author" nearly two centuries dead. Freud and some others claimed to be able to do this, but with no conspicuous success and a whole lot of failures. There is a world of difference between observing a family dynamic and being able to question those involved, and essentially playing "mad libs" with a blank slate period in a historical figure's inner life. (And, in clinical work, what may be more important is the patient's impression of what happened, rather than the actual facts on the ground. If the patient felt ignored and neglected, even if they weren't objectively, it makes little difference to them, or to treatment. The point is to move from where they are to where they want to be.)

Maybe plain old "psychohistory" is a good word for it, but that might imply (or be privately-defined to imply) only uses psychological theories to explain history--and, a clear fact like someone (say) being sexually abused as a child might well explain later actions or expressed attitudes.

It seems more like a novel than anything else. Historical fiction, perhaps. "Meta-history," maybe. Or, just plain "bad history."

[Dan Vogel]

Greg,

And, to bring the issue full circle, this is why the use of something like Family Systems theory is, in a sense, irrelevant to my concerns.

Family Systems theory won't tell you how to read texts in these ways, or plumb the subconscious or unexpressed motives, feelings, or emotions of an "author" nearly two centuries dead. Freud and some others claimed to be able to do this, but with no conspicuous success and a whole lot of failures. There is a world of difference between observing a family dynamic and being able to question those involved, and essentially playing "mad libs" with a blank slate period in a historical figure's inner life. (And, in clinical work, what may be more important is the patient's impression of what happened, rather than the actual facts on the ground. If the patient felt ignored and neglected, even if they weren't objectively, it makes little difference to them, or to treatment. The point is to move from where they are to where they want to be.)

Maybe plain old "psychohistory" is a good word for it, but that might imply (or be privately-defined to imply) only uses psychological theories to explain history--and, a clear fact like someone (say) being sexually abused as a child might well explain later actions or expressed attitudes.

It seems more like a novel than anything else. Historical fiction, perhaps. "Meta-history," maybe. Or, just plain "bad history."

Family Systems informed my examination of Smith family dynamics: the parents

[Dan Vogel]

LOAP,

That example doesn't stand alone, either; his entire reading of the BoM and JS is shot through with such "connections."

Vogel wrote:

[Dan Vogel]

Ben,

It's not nonsense Dan, and this isn't all that you are doing. Let me quote something you said here in this thread just recently:

[Dan Vogel]

LOAP,

Right. And it is only tenable by dismissing the actual statements of the witnesses. That they said black was white and up was down and that square is circle.

Greg,

Oh, I know you hold this view (against evidence like the statement of the eight witnesses).

The testimony of the Eight Witnesses can

[Mortal Man]

I suggested Nephi

[LifeOnaPlate]

The testimony of the Eight Witnesses can

[Greg Smith]

Family Systems informed my examination of Smith family dynamics: the parents

[LifeOnaPlate]

Well I come back to finish the job on Whitmer and it's been done. Thanks Greg!

[DLClark]

to my Mormon friends.

The Book of Mormon teaches that you are saved by grace after all you can do. (2 Nephi 25:23)

Have you done all that you can do in order to be saved by grace?

DLC

[Jeff K.]

No, I don't think I have done all I can do, but I keep trying.

[LifeOnaPlate]

to my Mormon friends.

The Book of Mormon teaches that you are saved by grace after all you can do. (2 Nephi 25:23)

Have you done all that you can do in order to be saved by grace?

DLC

Stangely off-topic, but I am interested to hear Dan Vogel's response.

[Dan Vogel]

Ben,

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.

I

[PacMan]

Dan,

A very long time...

The best evidence to determine authenticity is the discovery of Nephite or Jaredite artifacts, which hasn

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan Vogel writes:

True, I don

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan writes:

I

[LifeOnaPlate]

I would enjoy seeing any scholarly work which outlines what you do and calls it an appropriate model for either literary interpretation or writing history.

I wouldn't enjoy it, I would question it.

[Dan Vogel]

Greg,

Oedipal matters are classic Freud.

So, since we've now agreed that there IS, as Goff claimed, some Freudianism in the book--with no indication that you are rejecting such a reading--presumably we can stop complaining about his mentioning Freudianism and more modern interpretations which built on him as informing your approach. (I note too that I, like Goff--I think, am here concerned primarily with the Book of Mormon readings. Since many of these seem to commit the intentionalist fallacy--a common feature of psychodynamic readings of literature generally--perhaps this also explains my reaction to the work as "Freudian." I'll keep that in mind as I read and try to maybe come up with a more precise description.)

I disagree. Because I acknowledge the interpretations of Anderson and Morain in a footnote and mention that a certain aspect of the BOM