Dan Peterson fireside notes

[rongo]

Dan Peterson is more than welcome to do so in this thread, but unfortunately, he's been busy with other activities lately.

Well, and he probably wants to allow you to further paint yourself into a corner via your refinements in response to responses, before responding in a detailed way himself. Probably best to let you comment as far as you can here and elsewhere and give your Sunstone presentation before unloading.

Actually... no. Critics don't have to [seek mightily to discredit the witnesses]

Can you name any critics of Mormonism who do not try to discredit the witnesses? I can't think of any, and would be fascinated to learn of some who, while being critical of Mormon claims, do not try to discredit the witnesses at all.

My current theory (which isn't ready to be published yet) does not require discrediting the witnesses.

But does it try to discredit them, even if you think it "does not require" it? That's not the sense I get at all from your posts about the witnesses. I can wait until it comes out, though. You've definitely piqued my curiosity . . .

Apologists have exaggerated the level in which witnesses apostatized.

I don't think that one can argue this from a raw "check-list" standpoint (who left the Church and when).

Some of them were trying to salvage their following after Joseph's death.

There were absolutely complicated psychological and dynamics factors at play, just like with modern defections. For sure.

Besides, there is also an intimidation factor to consider. Whittle-whistlers, danites, blood oaths, etc.

Well, I think that "danites and blood oaths" have been very

[Obiwan]

Obiwan,

I mentioned that you should read what I have written on the subject so that you wouldn

[Obiwan]

The part where he insinuates that Joseph's early critics widely rejected the notion of ancient metal records, and that it wasn't until more recent discoveries that Joseph's notion of ancient metal records was vindicated. The notion in Joseph Smith's day was not limited to highly educated specialists, as Dan Peterson's friend and colleague Bill Hamblin has asserted. I have several sources from newspapers, magazines, encyclopedias, elementary text books, and biblical commentaries which promote the idea of ancient metal records--a few of which even mention stone boxes and records of gold.

Still doesn't change the FACT that anti-mormons used such as evidence "against" Mormonism.

Anti-mormons still ignore "evidences" today which validate LDS claims, thus what makes you think they didn't do so previously?

I remember seeing such many a times before LDS scholarship of the last many years verified it.

Anti-mormons did in fact widely reject the notion of ancient metal records similar to the BOM aspects.

You not knowing that is not our problem, for I remember it clearly, being anti-mormon myself, though not believing in that particular ignorant argument.

Further, I even STILL see the argument sometimes from anti's, but more so when I read their older stuff, hence proving the original point.

[Obiwan]

Hey T-Shirt.... Thanks for providing in the thread some of the more FULL evidences that Vogel's claims are "weak" compared to the rest of the evidences out there.

It's clear as day that the 2nd hand Harris claim is extremely negatively biased. It also shows how anti-mormons work. They take the worst claims from often the worst people, and then completely ignore the rest of the evidences of a particular issue. They only strive to validate their hate and disbelief, rather than wishing to get at the "actual" truth.

OFF TOPIC. One more personal attack and you will be banned from the thread.

[Mike Reed]

Anti-mormons still ignore "evidences" today which validate LDS claims, thus what makes you think they didn't do so previously?

My question is, did those in Joseph Smith's day overwhelmingly reject the notion? The answer to that question is no.

I remember seeing such many a times before LDS scholarship of the last many years verified it.

I can only find one of Joseph's contemporary critics rejecting the notion of ancient metal records. LaRoy Sunderland did so in 1838. The next closest criticism that has been cited is 1857--13 years after Joseph's death. The scarcity of such criticisms (along with the countless examples I've found promoting the notion of ancient metal records) severely undermines the apologetic of Hamblin, Peterson, Nibley, Matthew Roper, John Tvedtnes, etc, who try to turn the controversy into a "boomerang hit." No. It isn't a boomerang hit. It cannot be one, unless it is first established that the majority of Joseph's contemporaries thought the idea of ancient metal records was preposterous to begin with. Evidence suggests just the opposite: Many, many people already accepted the idea of ancient Metal records.

Anti-mormons did in fact widely reject the notion of ancient metal records similar to the BOM aspects.

It wasn't widely rejected in Joseph's day.

You not knowing that is not our problem, for I remember it clearly, being anti-mormon myself, though not believing in that particular ignorant argument.

I could care less what you remember. My question is when did these criticisms start, and how prevalent were they?

Further, I even STILL see the argument sometimes from anti's, but more so when I read their older stuff, hence proving the original point.

Nobody is denying that some people still echo the criticism. Again... this is about how prevalent the criticism was in Joseph Smith's day. Again... this is about apologists exaggerating the controversy in order to turn it into a boomerang hit confirming the authenticity of the BoM and Joseph's prophetic calling. It isn't a boomerang hit. What is it then? Answer: Pinning the tail on the donkey without a blindfold. Not impressive at all.

[Dan Vogel]

T-shirt:

Well, since you don't know me, I think that statement is quite speculative in nature, maybe, therein lies the problem. Furthermore, I don't think I interpreted anything, nor did I dismiss your evidence, I just laid out some facts. Was I wrong that Parrish and Burnett were bitter apostates or that they stormed the Kirtland temple with guns and knives or that they were angry over their financial losses in regards to the Kirtland Bank mess?

My whole point was, that not all evidence is treated equal. When you have hearsay that conflicts with other evidence, you have to look a little deeper. You have to admit that Parrish and Burnett had a desire to discredit Joseph Smith and had done some pretty unsavory things in attempting to do so.

My statement was to show you how your own bias works against you. Mormons think they can dismiss testimony they don

[Dan Vogel]

Obiwan:

How am I making "uninformed statements" if I'm responding to what you DIRECTLY STATE in this thread?

You made a claim, and I told you such a claim was "untenable" from the full truth and facts of history on the witnesses.

What part of that do you not understand? It is YOU going on your blissful path of ignorance, because your entire premise is baseless.

Rongo

[Vance]

Then your interpretation can

[SkepticTheist]

While you may say that you are not anti-Mormon in the classical sense, you are still not into this to be a preserver of faith, or a defender of faith.

Faith is definitely not necessarily a thing of value to you, and that is unacceptable to apologists. It seems to me that it is unimportant to you whether that which you do preserves or negatively impacts faith.

For people who do value faith, you become a foe by the nature of the game in some instances. You are not necessarily an "ally" or an "enemy" to apologists or to the Church, but where you are not an ally, that is a problem.

In the cases where what you do negatively impacts the faith of people, apologists must out of necessity come in and try to counter what you do. Not that we should deny facts or distort them. But the way facts are interpreted is always something where apologists can and should step in and use their muscle. So in the end, this all boils down to the fact that in those issues where you are a destroyer of faith, you must be countered by apologists, just like anti-Mormons must be.

Apologists should counter what you do just as much as Rod Meldrum should be opposed. Again, not in countering where you are bringing out the historical record, but where your interpretations of the historical record are hurtful to faith. Rod Meldrum no doubt thinks he is an apologist and not an enemy to truth, and certainly in Rod Meldrum's heart he is not an enemy to faith. But where apologists deem his positions are hurtful to faith, they have a duty to oppose them.

The fact is that it is true that the historical record must eventually be brought out in its entirety. I can't see how apologists would want it any other way. However, we aren't going to allow that to destroy faith, but we will modify our positions over time to have an interpretation that doesn't deny or distort facts, but at the same time, will preserve faith, in the same manner that Richard Bushman does. You have no interest in preserving faith that I can see.

I fail to see how wanting to be a preserver of the faith of the people is self-righteous. To me it is a service to the souls of men as much as temple work is, an absolutely selfless act. It is a manifestation of the law of sacrifice and law of consecration to use our talents and our means and our time to do some good to save people's souls from destruction, where nobody else will, to make attempts to save them from people who have no regard for their eternal welfare. As I can see it, those who destroy faith, or who have no regard for faith, regardless to what they call themselves, similar to anti-Mormons, have no regard for someone's eternal welfare.

Obiwan:

Rongo

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Some like Harris were advocating belief in the BOM, while others like Barnett rejected JS and the BOM, partly based on what Harris said.

Huh? So MH was advocating for a belief in the Book of Mormon, but folks like Barnett wanted to reject is because of something Harris said? To use that against the Book of Mormon makes absolutely no sense to me. Obviously, Harris believed in the book, so he should be the authority on his own words.

satan sure is crafty.

[Obiwan]

Dear Dan Vogel,

To me and most LDS, someone is "anti-mormon" for several reasons, but one of the chiefest being is that they "misrepresent" (i.e. lie) about mormonism and mormons. I know some LDS don't generally classify you as anti-mormon, and I will agree that you are certainly one of the "better" ones, but when you say things such as the plates weren't actually handled or were not really seen, because they were handled and seen while being "covered" or by "vision only", then to me that is anti-mormon. Why?

Because you latch on to "one" second hand statement from a blatant anti-mormon and even a violent and clearly bigoted one, and then completely ignore the "plethora" of testimony's from others, quality ones and quality people, both first and second hand, of them not only seeing the plates and handling the plates, but also seeing the writing and characters. To me, that is anti-mormon. It has nothing to do with "labeling" while ignoring facts or not addressing facts. I may label, but it is an accurate label, AND I deal with the facts. So, your trying to focus on my labeling rather than my points in relation to the facts really doesn't help you.

Thus in my view, if you were a simple "critic", you wouldn't have the need to misrepresent and ignore history and facts in order to make your conclusions. Critics in my view are people who simply don't believe, or don't believe the same, but the one thing they DON'T DO is misrepresent facts and omit important facts to paint an entirely false picture. Dan, the only reason you have your conclusion is because you completely ignore pertinant facts, and you do that... because well...., you have an agenda that is not honorable. You have an obsession with being critical of the Church, trying to find ANY sort of thread that could proove it false and then unfairly and in an unscholarly way exploiting that thread for your own purposes, thus, you are an anti-mormon.

Truthful and objective scholars try and get at the truth by taking ALL the available evidences and facts and THEN making a conclusion. You haven't done that, and you don't often do that. Thus, I don't find you to be a "legitimate" scholar, but only having the "appearance" thereof, like our Mike Reed also above.

Anyway, now you know....

Obiwan has left the building.

[Dan Vogel]

Obiwan,

I appreciate your honesty. That

[Dan Vogel]

Skeptic Theist,

While you may say that you are not anti-Mormon in the classical sense, you are still not into this to be a preserver of faith, or a defender of faith.

Faith is definitely not necessarily a thing of value to you, and that is unacceptable to apologists. It seems to me that it is unimportant to you whether that which you do preserves or negatively impacts faith.

For people who do value faith, you become a foe by the nature of the game in some instances. You are not necessarily an "ally" or an "enemy" to apologists or to the Church, but where you are not an ally, that is a problem.

In the cases where what you do negatively impacts the faith of people, apologists must out of necessity come in and try to counter what you do. Not that we should deny facts or distort them. But the way facts are interpreted is always something where apologists can and should step in and use their muscle. So in the end, this all boils down to the fact that in those issues where you are a destroyer of faith, you must be countered by apologists, just like anti-Mormons must be.

Apologists should counter what you do just as much as Rod Meldrum should be opposed. Again, not in countering where you are bringing out the historical record, but where your interpretations of the historical record are hurtful to faith. Rod Meldrum no doubt thinks he is an apologist and not an enemy to truth, and certainly in Rod Meldrum's heart he is not an enemy to faith. But where apologists deem his positions are hurtful to faith, they have a duty to oppose them.

The fact is that it is true that the historical record must eventually be brought out in its entirety. I can't see how apologists would want it any other way. However, we aren't going to allow that to destroy faith, but we will modify our positions over time to have an interpretation that doesn't deny or distort facts, but at the same time, will preserve faith, in the same manner that Richard Bushman does. You have no interest in preserving faith that I can see.

I fail to see how wanting to be a preserver of the faith of the people is self-righteous. To me it is a service to the souls of men as much as temple work is, an absolutely selfless act. It is a manifestation of the law of sacrifice and law of consecration to use our talents and our means and our time to do some good to save people's souls from destruction, where nobody else will, to make attempts to save them from people who have no regard for their eternal welfare. As I can see it, those who destroy faith, or who have no regard for faith, regardless to what they call themselves, similar to anti-Mormons, have no regard for someone's eternal welfare.

My interpretations might challenge fundamentalist views of Mormon history, but whether they are destructive to faith is another matter. I might not believe the BOM is real history, but I can

[Mike Reed]

Obiwan has left the building.

Obiwan,

See what happens when you compare me to Dan Vogel? Trash talk indeed. Dan Vogel doesn't deserve such disrespect.

[SkepticTheist]

I have been around the block, and have a nuanced faith, and a fundamental faith in historicity and in Joseph Smith and his revelations. Where you find a naturalistic explanation, I can make it out to have an apologetic explanation. You and your associates, as far as I can tell, have no interest in promoting the possibility of a faithful explanation. You spread seeds of doubt, under the cloak of saying that for such things that are spiritual, you have no answers, or that you have no position on things of faith. If it were merely a methodological thing, and was merely an effort just to get the historical record out, you would not be straining so hard at gnats to connect the dots for a 19th century/naturalistic explanation. This is no different than Glenn Beck straining to connect dots for a New World Order conspiracy without any real proof. So I have to question whether you have more of an agenda than to just get the facts out, and that you are as unbiased towards spiritual things with regards to Mormonism as you claim.

Skeptic Theist,

My interpretations might challenge fundamentalist views of Mormon history, but whether they are destructive to faith is another matter. I might not believe the BOM is real history, but I can

[Dan Vogel]

How is this different from saying,

"Then your interpretation can

[Dan Vogel]

I have been around the block, and have a nuanced faith, and a fundamental faith in historicity and in Joseph Smith and his revelations. Where you find a naturalistic explanation, I can make it out to have an apologetic explanation. You and your associates, as far as I can tell, have no interest in promoting the possibility of a faithful explanation. You spread seeds of doubt, under the cloak of saying that for such things that are spiritual, you have no answers, or that you have no position on things of faith. If it were merely a methodological thing, and was merely an effort just to get the historical record out, you would not be straining so hard at gnats to connect the dots for a 19th century/naturalistic explanation. This is no different than Glenn Beck straining to connect dots for a New World Order conspiracy without any real proof. So I have to question whether you have more of an agenda than to just get the facts out, and that you are as unbiased towards spiritual things with regards to Mormonism as you claim.

What kind of agenda could a lone scholar have? It

[Mike Reed]

You and your associates, as far as I can tell, have no interest in promoting the possibility of a faithful explanation.

If you were a non-believer and wrote a book like Dan's "Making of a Prophet," how would you have written it differently? Have you read Dan's book?

When apologists and Church authorities declare that the story of the witnesses, the witness of the holy spirit, or the reality of the gold plates "must be dealt with"... how would you answer that call? Would you answer it, or wait for someone else to extend their neck onto the chopping block?

If it were merely a methodological thing, and was merely an effort just to get the historical record out, you would not be straining so hard at gnats to connect the dots for a 19th century/naturalistic explanation.

What gnats? And why do you say he is "straining so hard" on them?

[SkepticTheist]

You are welcome to believe whatever you like, or have whatever kind of skepticism you like.

Kudos to you to whatever degree you can be sympathetic.

In the meantime, whatever your intent is, apologists will have to counter you to whatever degree they deem your points of view are hurtful to faith, whatever label you choose to brand yourself with.

What kind of agenda could a lone scholar have? It

[SkepticTheist]

Straining at gnats, in this context constitutes the same type of thinking that conspiracy theorists use to connect dots, where conclusions are overblown, where other rational explanations can be made that differ from the favored explanation of the "secularist."

If you were a non-believer and wrote a book like Dan's "Making of a Prophet," how would you have written it differently? Have you read Dan's book?

When apologists and Church authorities declare that the story of the witnesses, the witness of the holy spirit, or the reality of the gold plates "must be dealt with"... how would you answer that call? Would you answer it, or wait for someone else to extend their neck onto the chopping block?

What gnats? And why do you say he is "straining so hard" on them?

[Mike Reed]

Straining at gnats, in this context constitutes the same type of thinking

Oh. I thought you were prepared to support your accusations with examples. You haven't read Dan Vogel's Making of a Prophet, have you?

[Mike Reed]

SkepticTheist,

If you were a non-believer and wrote a book like Dan's "Making of a Prophet," how would you have written it differently? Have you read Dan's book?

When apologists and Church authorities declare that the story of the witnesses, the witness of the holy spirit, or the reality of the gold plates "must be dealt with"... how would you answer that call? Would you answer it, or wait for someone else to extend their neck onto the chopping block?

[SkepticTheist]

As far as I know, I made no commitment myself to engage you in debate on Vogel's book.

Oh. I thought you were prepared to support your accusations with examples. You haven't read Dan Vogel's Making of a Prophet, have you?

[Anijen]

If you were a non-believer and wrote a book like Dan's "Making of a Prophet,"

You make him sound like he just was a historian on a stroll who wandered onto the Mormon religion and thought hey I should write about this...

But from a members point of view like mine, his apostasy from the church and his embracing of atheism is just a little hard to swallow when you and others say oh he can be unbiased etc.

We are not talking about a historian such as Jan Shipps or Margaret Barker who are non LDS and do seem to respectfully write about LDS history without misrepresenting us or our beliefs. From my point of Dan Vogel has an agenda other than writing on the academic historic values of LDS history as the other two professors do but Mr. Vogel seems to purposely highlight and grandiose the history into a more shocking/startling aspect and is not short on speculation.

Yes, I admit I am a bit hesitant and I question an ex-mormon's motives more so than a non member when they write history about the church they once belonged to.

Just Saying.

edited to add; I apologize if I have contributed to derailing this once awesome thread.

[Mike Reed]

Thank you SkepticTheist and Anijen for your astute analysis of Vogel's scholarship and motives. All this time I had assumed that the best way to assess the value of an author's work was to read it. Boy was I naive.