Hot from the Press!

[LifeOnaPlate]

This presupposes I

[Dan Vogel]

Greg,

It would seem to me that family conflict and sibling rivalry are both among the commonest themes of both ancient and modern literature, as well as real human experience. I doubt anyone reading this message hasn't had some sibling rivalry and family conflict in their life (assuming they have a family and siblings).

And such things aren

[Dan Vogel]

Greg,

It gets even easier when one doesn't have to commit oneself by pinning meaning on them, I suppose. The sky is really the limit.

Interpretations are meaning; politicizing interpretation as you suggest would be distorting.

Because one can apparently see whatever one wants to see in the text. As I said, I can see Kennedy or Star Wars there if you want. But, that doesn't mean they're really there.

You are assuming that I

[Dan Vogel]

Gregg,

"Could represent"? Indeed, virtually anything could represent anything one wishes. As already demonstrated.

Again, there's no control or restraint on this sort of thing--anything you conclude about Joseph's family situation can be found in the Book of Mormon text. If it doesn't match, then that's evidence too, because we can always tease some emotional resonance out of it.

But, I can find the Kennedy's in that text too, or Star Wars if I wanted to.

[Dan Vogel]

Greg,

It is particularly funny that Dan--who admits assuming at the outset a materialistic world view where there are no angels and no visions, and who admits to writing a biography about Joseph by starting with the presumption that he is the Book of Mormon's author and that this book can provide insights into Joseph's mind and emotional state--is accusing others of reading the witness accounts with "assumptions" beforehand!

Everyone has preconceptions. Thus far, I've seen little evidence that your preconceptions have somehow been controlled for or placed on the back burner. Your entire approach would seem to require your preconceptions to even get a start.

Don

[LifeOnaPlate]

The witnesses never said the plates were uncovered, as you state above. That is assumed.

Dan dismisses all statements that go against his assumed reality.

That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

I'm reminded of Richard Lloyd Anderson's remark: "Well you know that's like telling your teenage kid 'what part of no do you not understand?' What part of 'hefted' and 'seeing the curious characters' don't you understand?" And just in case someone wants to argue that he collective statement doesn't count, Whitmer reaffirmed it many times, including in his editorial farewell in The Messenger and Advocate in 1836, wherein he said "I handled the plates, I want the readers to know I lifted the plates, I handled the plates and I know they're translated by the power of God" and so forth.

Or consider an interview of John Whitmer by a Mr. P. Wilhelm Poulson is recorded as follows:

I said: I am aware that your name is affixed to the testimony in the Book of Mormon, that you saw the plates?

He-It is so, and that testimony is true.

I-Did you handle the plates with your hands?

He-I did so!

I-Then they were a material substance?

He-Yes, as material as anything can be.

I-They were heavy to lift?

He-Yes, and you know gold is a heavy metal, they were very heavy.

I-How big were the leaves?

He-So far as I recollect, 8 by 6 or 7 inches.

I-Were the leaves thick?

He-Yes, just so thick, that characters could be engraven on both sides.

I-How were the leaves joined together?

He-In three rings, each one in the shape of a D with the straight line towards the centre.

I-Did you see them covered with a cloth?

He-No. He handed them uncovered into our hands, and we turned the leaves sufficient to satisfy us.

Oddly enough, the source is Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 5:247

[Greg Smith]

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

[Greg Smith]

This is a strange way of interpreting. The word supernatural is used correctly in both quotes, and there is no need to correct the first since only you think it says something wrong. The gotcha-moment-argument is one from silence, but it also undoes your first argument it is a mistaken conflation. Turley either made a mistake in reporting that Whitmer claimed to see the plates through

[Dan Vogel]

Greg,

I'm quite happy to grant that it isn't ALL Freudian. But, to insist that no Freudianism is in there is also a bit much. There's also the father-son killing dynamic (e.g. p. 227) son supplanting the Father (p. 274), etc. Goff lists a bunch of similar examples in footnote 44 of his first review. I've not yet reached them all.

If your method for reading the Book of Mormon parlallels is valid, there would seem to be few grounds for dismissing Goff's reading of you and finding Freudian parallels.

If, however, you want to claim that this is Goff's misreading of you--fine. But, that would seem to undercut your ability to read Joseph's parallels at greater historical distance. Only difference is Joseph isn't around to gainsay your reading.

The logic here is a bit jumbled. All I can say is: I intentionally avoided the Freudian interpretations of Anderson and Morain, although I wrote with an awareness of them. I wouldn

[Greg Smith]

OK. Polemicist then. This is possibly a better term for someone who declares they are a

[LifeOnaPlate]

I'm still waiting for Dan to give an example of any other scholar who uses his still-ambiguous methodology.

[Greg Smith]

Here you seem to want to set up a circular definition. Anyone who is

[Greg Smith]

The parallels between Nephi and JS are not being used to show JS

[Dan Vogel]

And the ad hominem keep on coming. :-) What is this, the D. Michael Quinn school of foonotes? (I'm depressed I didn't get the label "FARMS polemicist."

Hint. It has something to do with your commitment to your possition. It goes beyond anything an apologist for naturalism would do. I wouldn't give 10% plus, go on a mission, or die for naturalism. Really, there's nothing to get excited about believing death is the end. It's something you wish you were wrong about. On the other hand, I can understand the intensity with which some people want to deny that proposition.

But, this gives us a fun check of your methods and interpretive powers. You're referring, I presume, to the "status" quote on my user page here:

http://www.mormonapo...404-greg-smith/

Where it reads: "Greg Smith has never told you how you're his Judy Garland. And me, I am your cyclone."

Now, you've had a conversation or two with me. We're of the same historical time, cultural background, relative educational exposure, etc. You've got access to Google.

And yet, despite your confidence here, it would be difficult to misread and misunderstand me more seriously. I would never say that sort of thing to a critic.

1) It's a friends page, so I assumed if anyone saw it it would be "friends." I certainly wasn't speaking to "critics." Strike one.

2) The line is a quote from a marvelous new Canadian singer I discovered, Craig Cardiff. It's from a love song--one recalls, of course, that Judy Garland/Dorothy was taken by the cyclone to a wondrous place, out of the humdrum. Its a song with some ambivalent, "is the speaker a good thing for the audience or not" lines:

And every song sounds like a love song

And every kiss feels like your first

And I know I'm always losing you

From better than bad and back to worse

Hey, I never told you that you're my Judy Garland

Myself, I am your cyclone

Oh I love the idea of loving an idea

I call out to Kansas but you're never home

http://lyrics.wikia....ff:Judy_Garland

Strike two.

Lest you think this is just ad hoc justification, one could check my Facebook page, where I do this same thing with status bars because I never know what to say, and can't believe anyone cares what I'm doing. So, I've had such lines as:

Greg wants to live in geological time....

Source: Sam Roberts, "Them Kids"

Lyrics: http://lyrics.wikia....berts:Them_Kids

Greg knew "an actress to be/ She was amazingly life-like."

Source: The Weepies (original by Steve Tannen), "San Francisco"

Lyrics: http://lyrics.wikia....n:San_Francisco

So, you could not have misunderstood or misread more completely than you did. But, we see here the same rather brash confidence that the line as you've read it gives you some sort of insight into my intent, or self-attitude, or attitude toward "the critics, or the audience to whom I was addressing, or something.

But, without me to tell you you're wrong, one would never know.

The extension of this example to the case under discussion is left as an exercise to the reader. :-)

It's not like I was offering it as a serious interpretation. Your attempt to make your case out of it is laughable. It doesn't prove anything but your eagerness to over generalize and ability to invent meaningless polemical arguments. You are trying to apply a particular to a general.

[Greg Smith]

Hint. It has something to do with your commitment to your possition. It goes beyond anything an apologist for naturalism would do. I wouldn't give 10% plus, go on a mission, or die for naturalism. Really, there's nothing to get excited about believing death is the end. It's something you wish you were wrong about. On the other hand, I can understand the intensity with which some people want to deny that proposition.

I see. So, those who have decided the data warrants one view can be dismissed because of the strength of their opinion?

This is just one more species of the "more-objective-than-thou" argument. Let's see:

http://en.wikipedia...._circumstantial

"Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source)."

Because of course, someone who left a religion would never have a highly vested interest in proving that their decision was rational, logically defensible, and the only proper choice, right? This type of bias is only possible in the case of the believer, n'est-ce pas?

And, someone who had written and published a book on the topic would have no strong feelings about having a gaping hole in logic demonstrated after they've berated others for their poor attention to logic on this very topic?

I can understand the intensity with which some people wish to deny the proposition that their choices in matters of religion have been ill-considered--it would mean accepting sinfulness, breakage of covenants, eternal consequences, social and professional distruption, etc. :-) Probably clouds their judgment beyond repair. :-)

See how anyone can play? I'm just amazed you're lecturing me about "polemical arguments" with this sort of thing. Unless you don't mean it seriously? :-) I mean my reply as seriously as you mean yours.

It's not like I was offering it as a serious interpretation. Your attempt to make your case out of it is laughable.

Sigh. What about "fun check" don't you get? How many smiley's do I need to put in there?

You get to not be serious when you attack me, but I can't parry your description of me in the same spirit?

Well, double standards do seem to be the order of the day. Hint: I intended mine response exactly as seriously as you intended the remark that precipitated it. You can titrate to effect.

It was intended to be "laughable," but not in the pitying sort of way.

It doesn't prove anything but your eagerness to over generalize and ability to invent meaningless polemical arguments. You are trying to apply a particular to a general.

...says the man who uses my little joke as occasion for a lecture while ignoring the substantive points in the subsequent posts. :-)

I think we're all still interested in that methodology outline, were you so inclined.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I think we're all still interested in that methodology outline, were you so inclined.

Exactly. Dan's still dodging.

[TOmNossor]

I have read most of this exchange between Dan and Greg and LOP and

[Greg Smith]

Now, I think Greg

[Jerubaal]

After a few looks at Dan's arguments, they seem rather circular, i.e.: The parallels to Joseph's life are valid if he wrote it, and since he wrote it, they are valid (yet parallels to J.F.K. or Ancient Near Eastern texts are not because of the assumption that neither J.F.K. nor an Ancient Near Easterner was the author). Anyone else seeing this?

EDIT: And might I add, even if one rejects the position that the BoM was written anciently, Joseph Smith is hardly the only candidate for modern authorship, which makes it a foolish assumption to make without, as Greg has repeatedly said, other sources of evidence for authorship. Dan, have you ever tried searching for parallels to the life of, say Sidney Rigdon or Solomon Spaulding (just to name two)?

[Greg Smith]

After a few looks at Dan's arguments, they seem rather circular, i.e.: The parallels to Joseph's life are valid if he wrote it, and since he wrote it, they are valid (yet parallels to J.F.K. or Ancient Near Eastern texts are not because of the assumption that neither J.F.K. nor an Ancient Near Easterner was the author). Anyone else seeing this?

EDIT: And might I add, even if one rejects the position that the BoM was written anciently, Joseph Smith is hardly the only candidate for modern authorship, which makes it a foolish assumption to make without, as Greg has repeatedly said, other sources of evidence for authorship.

Again, I point out that even if we grant Joseph's authorship, it still seems to me that this is poor history if we draw conclusions about Joseph's thoughts or life that have no other evidence in the historical record.

My concern is not about Dan's starting assumptions, but with the use of the data even granting those assumptions.

Again, a methodological statement might help, but that has not been forthcoming, and what he says he's doing in the book is what he denies doing here (at least as I read it).

GLS

[Dan Vogel]

Jerubaal,

After a few looks at Dan's arguments, they seem rather circular, i.e.: The parallels to Joseph's life are valid if he wrote it, and since he wrote it, they are valid (yet parallels to J.F.K. or Ancient Near Eastern texts are not because of the assumption that neither J.F.K. nor an Ancient Near Easterner was the author). Anyone else seeing this?

As I have stated, parallels, whether they are ancient or modern, are necessarily going to be circular or question begging. The only parallels that can produce any degree of certainty are those involving plagiarism, as with the BOM

[Dan Vogel]

Gregg,

No, Dan keeps assuming this is my position, but it is not. (If that were what Dan was trying to do, it would have even more problems, but it isn't.)

My objection is that even if we assume (as Dan does) that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, getting this kind of historical information from a fictional work is an utterly illegitimate attempt.

What kind of historical information? Fiction books contain all kinds of historical information. One can learn a great deal about a culture

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan writes:

What kind of historical information? Fiction books contain all kinds of historical information. One can learn a great deal about a culture

[LifeOnaPlate]

Ben said he is looking for an example of the following:

1) Assume an author for a work of fiction (without getting in the debate of whether or not he is the author).

2) Read the text looking for clues to the history of that author which are not elsewhere supported in the historical record.

3) Interpret the text so that the clues become evident in the work of fiction.

C.S. Lewis actually talked a little bit about this. Because he had converted to Christianity and subsequently wrote fiction he became aware that people were digging into his books looking for autobiographical similarities. He had problems with this because people inevitably got things wrong. Moreover, not everything he incorporated into his fiction actually reflected his own positions. So picking through Lewis