Not so easy?

[Tanyan]

He is maybe bored watching Twilight zone reruns and getting caught up in the episodes and feels as if he is a part of each scene, perhaps.

[Dan Vogel]

Mr. Informant:

For those reading along, the lesson for today is how a disingenuous apologist (polemicist) tries to block genuine discussion by employing an argument from authority, also known as Argumentum ad Verecundiam in an attempt to poison the well.

In my previous post, I mentioned Damer’s book, another good book to have is David Hackett Fischer’s Historians’ Fallacies where you will find, under “Fallacies of Substantive Distraction,” the following:

The fallacy of argument ad verecundiam is an appeal to authority. ... This form of error is an egregious but effective rhetorical technique which puts an opponent in the awkward position of appearing to commit the sin of pride if he persists in his opposition. (David Hackett Fischer’s Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought [New York: Harper & Row, 1970], 283).

In other words, if I try to defend myself by quoting my reviewers or referring to the awards my books have won, I begin to appear conceited, arrogant, or prideful. It’s a catch 22. I believe it is no accident that Mr. Informant went right for this point as soon as I mentioned my book.

Mr. Vogel to Ray A: You ask me if I think Joseph Smith had the ability to write/dictate something like the BofM. Yes, I do. I can’t give all my reasons here, of course, but I have written about 300 pages explaining my views in JOSEPH SMITH: THE MAKING OF A PROPHET. So, I recommend going there for details.

Mr. Informant: Great! You know, you and Abanes ought to get together. You could simply start a single thread where you shill for your books. (Nov 4 2004, 11:21 AM)

More telling is Mr. Informant’s reaction when I announced that I was curtailing my participation.

Mr. Vogel: For the most part, I don’t believe that the “truth-seeking principle” is operating here. Hence my enthusiasm for such dialogue has been greatly reduced and believe further effort on my part is fruitless, although I might pop in on occasion. (Nov 8 2004, 07:51 AM)

Mr. Informant: Typical. Apparently we didn’t genuflect sufficiently at the altar of Dan. At the very least he could interact with Bill Hamblin and ignore the rest of us simpletons. Maybe Dan’s right. Maybe I’m just stupid. (Nov 4 2004, 11:21 AM)

For the record: I never said Mr. Informant is stupid. I said he wasn’t interested in the “right answer.” So, dear readers, are you seeing how Mr. Informant and his cohorts operate? I either take their ad hominem and “appeals to authority” and let them poison the well, or defend myself and get accused of the sin of pride. I believe they know these things are fallacious, but like good propagandists they persist in them because they work.

Scholars are not beyond making personal attacks on one another. Regarding the use of verecundiam in historiography, Fischer states:

The most crude and ugly form of an argument ad verecundiam in historical writing is an appeal to professional status. (p. 283)

Fischer goes on to describe a dispute between Prof. David Donald and a young graduate student who published a reply to an article the former had published. “Donald, unfortunately, lost his temper.” Fischer states. “His rebuttal consisted of a series of ignoratii, punctuated by an ad verecundiam” (p. 284). Among other things the good Prof. said: “Perhaps the teaching profession is a fault in encouraging young scholars ... to undertake studies in methodology and historiography before he has demonstrated his competence in research” (p. 284). Fischer observes:

In historiography, such crude forms of argument ad verecundiam are rarely to be met with -- in print, at least. The explanation is not that scholars are gentlemen, but rather, as Bolingbroke noted many years ago, that “those who are not such, however, have taken care to appear such in their writings” (p. 284)

As with ad hominem and poisoning the well, it is important to distinguish between argument and testimony. This is exactly what Mr. Informant has failed to do.

Mr. Vogel: So, admittedly, you have no “competence” in psychology. Yet you have attempted to criticize my use of it.

Mr. Informant: Actually I wouldn’t say that I have no competence in it, though I’d never feign to be an “expert.” What I do know is the technique you use in your book would never be admissible in a court room. We simply don’t allow one person to theorize about the thoughts and feelings of others. If it isn’t acceptable in the context where truth is paramount, why should I give it any credence in any context or setting?

Note how Mr. Informant tries to imply that I “feign to be an ‘expert’” in psychology, which is utter nonsense, if not disingenuous. How many times do I have to deny it? The only purpose for the repetition is to disseminate untruth much like a propagandist would.

Mr. Informant, whether you give “credence” or not is your prerogative, but you are wrong in supposing your can use the same principle used in court rooms in historical situations. The sources do not lend themselves to those kinds of standards. Perhaps you should consider the “misuse of principle” fallacy, which “consists in misapplying a principle or rule in a particular instance by assuming that it has no exceptions.”

As to what happens in court rooms, I think you oversimplify since the prosecution must offer a theory of motivation and any discussion of motivation necessarily involves some degree of speculation as to the thoughts of the defendant. A witness is not to speculate, but the prosecuting attorney certainly does, especially in closing.

Briefly, my book does offer some speculations “based on the logic of the situation” (which I know is a controversial technique in historiography) and circumstantial evidence. You seem to overlood the fact that I regard the BofM as a source for understanding what Joseph Smith believed about himself, as I explained in the introduction to my book which you claim you read. Some things that come early in my narrative are not fully understood until the whole paradigm is considered. There really is little difference between reconstructing a person’s possible actions in a certain situation and reconstructing his possible rationalizations and motives for doing so. It is an attempt to make sense of things that otherwise do not. The only way to overcome my interpretations is to formulate better ones. But you cannot do that until you examine mine instead of attempting to categorically deny mine.

As the old Chinese proverb goes: “You must first empty your cup, before you can taste my tea.” (or something like that)

As to mind-reading, which is a favorite pass-time with apologists, I will note but one example from an author for whom you undoubtedly have respect.

“Joseph had two questions in his mind: which church was right, and how to be saved.” (p. 54)

“By 1838 Joseph understood how significant it was that God the Father had appeared to introduce the Son.” (p. 57)

“Even in the midst of the translation questions flickered across Martin's mind.” (p. 90)

“[Joseph] Knight said he was not told the day when the church was to be organized, but Joseph did have a precise date in mind.” (p. 143)

“Other doctrines may have been forming in Joseph's mind as he brought the new church into existence.” (p. 156)

Richard Bushman, Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1984).

This is just a small sample of what can be produced. Mr. Informant, you simply do not know what you are talking about when it comes to historiography, so I would advise you to approach subjects for which you have no competence with less presumption. Biography is very difficult to do and has its inherent pitfalls. Some suggest that it should never be attempted at all. All I can say is that I tried to understand the real Joseph Smith and not the mythical one that he both projected and his followers constructed. (That is a very interesting psychological dynamic I hope to take up some day.) But the implication that my psychological reconstructions have no merit or are not derived from my interpretation of the evidence is erroneous. Perhaps if you actually read the book, you might be able to ask some specific questions. To which I could then give some specific answers. (But this thread is not the place.)

To continue with Mr. Informant’s irrelevant questions, note that they are sometime framed like a prosecutor would. The only problem is that there is no defense attorney or judge to object.

... what training/background/education do you have that would qualify you to engage in a psychological analysis of a living person, let alone one whose been dead for more than 160 years? (Nov 3 2004, 10:03 AM)

Objection! Argumentative.

Purely rhetorical. It’s one thing to psychoanalyze a living person, and quite another to use one psychological theory (i.e., family-systems theory) and apply it to a dead person.

Recently, I read Kyle R. Walker’s dissertation, “The Joseph Sr. and Lucy Mack Smith Family: A Family Process Analysis of a Nineteenth Century Household” (BYU, 2001), and, although I found it quite interesting and informative, I thought his psychological interpretations would have been improved by a better grasp of the historical sources and a more critical acceptance of apologetic explanations. To be fair with Walker, he was primarily concerned with psychological theory than historiography, and mine was the reverse. Now, should I adopt Mr. Informant’s stance and discount Walker’s work because he has no credentials as a historian? Absolutely not! That would be wrong. I would only point out to Mr. Walker that I think his interpretation could be improved by examining his historical assumptions a little more carefully.

Mr. Vogel: In summary, then, in my opinion, Joseph Smith was not as ignorant as Mormons assume ...

Mr. Informant: Again, on what evidence do you base this conclusion when all the contemporary evidence points to exactly the opposite conclusion? Were all of his friends and enemies involved in the same conspiracy: to make Joseph look more ignorant than he really was? Good lord, the man’s wife testified that he didn’t know that Jerusalem was a walled city and that he could barely form a coherent sentence at the time the book was translated.... Shouldn’t you at least be required to explain how your view should trump the view of the contemporary witnesses? (Nov 4 2004, 11:21 AM).

Of course, in this limited format, I cannot go into the “all contemporary evidence” and “all of his friends and enemies” that Mr. Informant seems to request. But his characterization of the evidence is exaggerated and simplistic, betrays the fact that he hasn’t read my book as claimed, and demonstrates that he does not have a critical grasp of the sources. His main concern seems to be with Emma’s testimony. So I will deal with that. That I think I can handle. For example, on p. 119 of the biography, I write:

On another occasion, while Emma was taking dictation, Joseph “stopped suddenly, pale as a sheet, and said, ‘Emma, did Jerusalem have walls around it?’ When I answered, ‘Yes,’ he replied ‘Oh! I was afraid I had been deceived.’”

This mix of ignorance and fluent dictation convinced Emma that her husband operated under divine inspiration. She later told her son Joseph III, “I am satisfied that no man could have dictated the [book of Mormon] unless he were inspired. For when acting as his scribe he would dictate to me hour after hour, and when returning after meals or after interruptions, he would at once begin where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him. This was a usual thing for him to do. It would have been improbable that a learned man could do this, and for so ignorant and unlearned as he was it was simply impossible.”

Actually, Emma overstated the case for Joseph’s illiteracy, claiming that he “could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well worded letter, let alone dictating a book like the Book of Mormon.” Certainly, Smith had less schooling than his wife, but he managed to write reasonably well. After examining several letters from the early period of Smith’s life (1831-32), historian Dale Morgan concluded that they exhibit “a flair for words, a measure of eloquence, and a sufficient degree of schooling.” William Smith challenged the view that his brother was “unlettered” as a “mistake,” remembering that Joseph “wrote [in] a plain intelligible hand.” Still, Smith’s talent lay not in correct orthography but, while telling a story, in his sense of narrative and ability to create memorable images.

So, it is not my opinion that “trumps” the testimony of these witnesses, but rather the physical evidence, his letters from this period as well as what he wrote thereafter. It was only Emma’s opinion that even a learned man could not write the BofM and that her husband was incapable of writing it, and that is only an opinion and does not count as evidence. Besides, bias is a two-way street, and the fact that in the same 1879 interview Emma denies that her husband ever lived polygamy should make us cautious. The facts do not support either of Emma’s claims for her husband. And your statement that “all” were of the same opinion of Joseph is simply not true. You left out the rest of my statement to Ray A, which was:

I believe his story-telling abilities were already apparent in his money-digging operations and his conversations with his family about the discovery of the plates in 1823. Further, I would also observe that a minimal requirement of charismatic leaders is a command of language, especially in oral presentation, as a means of persuasion. I think Joseph Smith’s competency in this area is demonstrated in his dictation of revelations and letters. His letters from Liberty Jail (parts of which are in D&C 121-123), in my opinion, exceed anything in the Book of Mormon. (Nov 3 2004, 01:38)

So, as you see, you have left out my evidence and arguments, but act as if no evidence has been given. The point is, Joseph Smith didn’t suddenly get smart and eloquent after publication of the BofM. Now, I have no doubt that many of my teachers in High School would have suspected that some day I would be writing books either. Look at how surprised you are that a grocery store clerk has written a book that happen to have won the best book of the year award. Stranger things have happened. I think of the great philosopher Eric Hoffer who wrote his books all the while working as a longshoreman in Oakland, California. Joseph Smith’s unlearned status is no evidence that he was incapable of writing a book like the BofM. He may not have been able to write a great work of literature, nor a scholarly treatise, but the BofM was not beyond his capabilities. It only seems that way when looked at through the apologetic lens.

The only thing we know for sure is that Joseph Smith dictated the BofM with his face in a hat, whether or not he was “inspired” is anyone’s guess. I only say that the element of “inspiration” is not necessary to explain the phenomenon.

As if Mr. Informant’s ignoring of my evidence is not bad enough, his repeated demand for evidence is downright annoying. Why give someone more evidence if they haven’t dealt with what you already gave them? Kind of futile, wouldn’t you say? Nevertheless, the nagging continued. So as to spare the reader the frustration I felt, I will not rehearse this. Needless to say, if Mr. Informant persisted in this methodology in a court room he would eventually be cited for contempt. Unfortunately, there is no one to stop this kind of trickery.

Now, I want to discuss Mr. Informant’s constant call for me to write a treatise on methodology. It is merely another attempt to distract the discussion down another blind alley, for which there is no return. I think it is important to note that Mr. Informant introduced the methodological issue, not in response to anything specific I said in this thread, but as a change of subject:

what I’d really love to see is an explanation of your historical methodology. How do you decide which sources are more reliable? How do you filter for possible bias? ... lay out for us what methodology you have constructed.

As we saw with his use of Emma Smith, Mr. Informant apparently is not a keen observer of bias, which might be a liability as an attorney. Note, dear reader, how Mr. Informant asks me to volunteer information. This is the oldest lawyer trick in the book. The point is to make the witness elaborate unnecessarily and provide information that would not otherwise be admissible in the court. Any defense attorney worth his salt would object to this type of open-ended questioning. So when these apologists come up to you with vague questions, ask them to give their reasoning for the question before you assume you know what they mean. Ask them to produce their best evidence, as I did above with Emma, and respond to that. Remember, you have a right to do that since Mr. Informant and his cohorts are clearly adversarial in their approach to some of us. Do not make their case for them. Make them work for it. If I simply spilled on my methodology, I would be on the defensive. That’s what they want.

Note that we are discussing methodology, but it’s more his than mine. Note also that I didn’t have to ask him what it was.

My questions about your competency regard your ability to analyze those facts to arrive at viable conclusions. ... I am not convinced that you have the requisite training to make adequate use of those tools. (Nov 5 2004, 10:56 PM).

This might be news to you, but I don’t have to prove anything to you. You are an apologist who admittedly requires the lowest standards of evidence (that of mere “plausibility”) for Mormon apologists and, by your behavior here, the strictest standards for critics. I won’t bore my readers with the details, but FAIR and FARMS regularly publish the works of non-specialists in various subjects. So, I have nothing to prove to you, but how am I doing so far? Ooops! You needn’t answer that since I don’t really care about your assessment. Nevertheless, to make your assessment of my methodology, all you have to do is read my book and bring up specific questions. Regardless, the suggestion that I have to convince the likes of you in order for my analysis of early Mormonism to be valid is ludicrous. That would put too much power into your hands. I would rather leave it to less biased critics like Daniel Howe, Ann Taves, Newel Bringhurst, Robert Anderson, Bill Russell, and Bill Morain.

Mr. Informant raised a question about 19th century parallels in the BofM and method.

Noel: There seems to be so much 19c material that can be found in the BOM. Of course the like of Blake Ostler admits to that along with the ancient material. (Nov 6 2004, 07:10 PM)

Mr. Informant: You know, I keep hearing this claim, but I seldom see any evidence of what material counts as 19th century and what does not. It occurs to me that I doubt Ostler would agree with your rather brief description of his work. Moreover, it occurs that the 19th century material in the B of M is a relic of the translation process rather than a relic of the actual text. (Nov 6 2004, 10:28 PM)

Mr. Vogel: If you are looking for something like the documentary hypothesis of the books of Moses, you’re not going to find it. But the implication that a precise methodology is necessary to demonstrate 19th century influences is absurd. ... Noel was actually more correct than you in representing Ostler’s thesis, although Noel was elliptical. Ostler’s thesis is that Joseph Smith made inspired expansions on the ancient source, admitting 19th century influence. ... Not just a word here and there, as Mr. Informant implies, but Joseph Smith’s inspired “expansions”. ... Mr. Informant might want to ask Mr. Ostler for his methodology for determining “what material counts as 19th century and what does not.” Of course, he can’t ask me this question since I regard it as completely 19th century.

Mr. Informant: And thus we reach the underlying theme of Vogel, Metcalfe, Palmer, et al. Methodology is not necessary. Can you imagine a [edited] scholar ever suggesting such a thing? Can you imagine a New Testament scholar claiming textual reliance on Greek mythology and then suggesting that he doesn’t need to provide any methodology to show how he reached his conclusions? Unbelievable

Can anyone say, “over-the-top”?

Before Mr. Informant does a victory dance, he should consider the wording and context of my statement. I did not say that “methodology is not necessary.” What I said was: Mr. Informant’s expectation that Ostler have “a precise methodology” “of what material counts as 19th century and what does not.” I repeat, if you’re looking for something like the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis, that tries to separate the J, P and E traditions in the Pentateuch, you are expecting too much. I’ve seen attempts to be precise with the JEP traditions, even color coding them, that ends up ruining a good theory. We might be able to prove something is going on with the text, a weaving of various traditions, but not necessarily precisely.

Since I believe the BofM is all 19c, it is unnecessary for me to separate out possible ancient and possible 19c material. Perhaps Mr. Informant might ask Mr. Ostler to do so. As far as I can tell from his essay, he doesn’t have one; at least, not a “precise” one. Yet many apologists find his theory useful. Mr. Informant’s requirement would also extend to those who do not share Ostler’s “expansion” hypothesis but have some kind of vague translation hypothesis to explain away historical and literary anachronisms. As I see it, Mr. Informant’s unreasonable expectation cuts both ways.

As far as my methodology goes, it’s no secret since I have explained this in my writings. Generally, it’s the same methodology Nibley uses, the historical-critical or comparative method, although my parallels are much closer to Joseph Smith than his ancient examples were “theoretically” to Lehi. Parallels come in varying degrees of certainty. And as Nibley himself said, the closer the parallel, the closer the connection. Simply, I’m unaware of any exact methodology for measuring the more distant echos in a text. At least I haven’t seen anyone using one. I could be wrong and am eager to be corrected. So, Mr. Informant, since it would not only be beneficial to me but also for Mr. Ostler and the apologetic community as well, can you point us in the direction of this “exact” methodology? You sound like you know something we are all missing, so can you help us?

Nevertheless, I must be doing something right because I have managed to convince some apologists that the BofM reflects anti-Universalist rhetoric, for example, despite initial resistance. In a 1995 FARMS Review of New Approaches, Kevin Christensen admitted that he was hasty in criticizing my identification of Corianton with Universalism in a previous article and then states: “Having recently done some reading about Universalism, I now better understand the grounds for his identification, but remain skeptical with respect to the comprehensive explanation.” In a BYU publication reviewing the same essay, Stephen Clarke more recently concluded that “Joseph [smith] was able to draw phrases and ideas from the Universalism debate, and weave them seamlessly into the Book of Mormon narrative” (Stephen Clarke, "'Do Ye Suppose that Mercy Can Rob Justice?': The Universalism Debate and Book of Mormon Soteriology," in Archive of Restoration Culture: Summer Fellows’ Papers, 1997-1999 [Provo, UT: Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History, 2000], 160). So, whatever my methodology, some find it convincing.

It would also allow some one like Brant Gardener to then respond with an alternative methodology which can be used to make the argument that certain elements are much more comfortable in the precolumbian environment rather than the 19th century one.

Now, that’s something I would like to see. All he has to do is show that the Maya not only believed in Universalism but used the same proof texts from the Bible, because that is what the BofM does. Actually, that would be unfair to expect Mr. Gardener to counter 19c parallels with archaeology. Yet would be nice to have some Hebrew inscription or Christian iconography. But Mr. Gardener has announced his new methodology, as quoted by Kevin Christensen:

The rather interesting discovery I made just a few years back was that I, and many other Mesoamericanists, had simply made some incorrect assumptions about the [bofM] text. The attempts of LDS archaeological apologetics was for years focused on finding the Christian or the Hebrew--or who knows what--in Mesoamerican archaeology. The difference came when I started looking for Mesoamerica in the BofM instead of the BofM in Mesoamerica. Oddly enough, there is a huge difference, and the nature and the quality of the correlations has change with that single shift in perspective. (FARMS Review 16:1, p. 309)

Now, without going into an assessment on the quality of Mr. Gardener’s findings, which I have yet to read in detail, does it not seem to be an error in methodology? This method is the reverse of the scientific method because there is no way to test or falsify either the BofM or Gardener’s interpretation. By reversing the order of things, the apologist does not have to consider disconfirming evidence at all. For example, using this method one would never know that there is a problem with the text’s mention of the horse or steel or Judaism or Christianity. Because, for example, there was no metallurgy in Mesoamerica until about 900 ACE, you would become blind to that kind of problem. As I said I haven’t examined his evidence closely, but Gardener’s methodology has one obvious advantage: it is easier to distort the text to fit Mesoamerica, than it is to distort Mesoamerica to fit the BofM. To me, this is the same as admitting defeat, not unlike the introduction of the limited geography. But that’s just my opinion.

In sum, Mr. Informant’s hope that Mr. Gardener’s work could somehow overturn my analysis is naive. Mr. Gardener and I are working in two different worlds and paradigms, even if Mr. Gardener was not using his idiosyncratic methodology. Frankly, I think the 19c parallels are decisive and the apologists have not adequately explained them. The use of the Bible is not limited phraseology as some suppose, but involve proof-texting New Testament passages the same way anti-Universalists did.

Mr. Informant how long do you think you can keep patching this leaky boat? The apologetic excuses and elaborate explanations are getting a little tiring. Don’t you think BofM apologetics is in a crisis and heading for another major paradigm shift?

Now, this post is way too long. I’m not whining about being the object of ad hominem attack. I suppose it comes with the territory. For the most part, I try to accept it with grace. But Mr. Informant and Ms Juliann go too far in their win-at-all-costs methods. Mr. Informant’s use of these fallacies has diverted attention from the real issues and arguments. So in the future, if I ignore fallacious attacks, it’s not because I have no response, it’s because, being human, I have little patience with such reprehensible behavior from people who should know better.

I’m not trying to be some great authority on anything; I’m happy just to participate in the ongoing discussion.

Thank you Dunamis for your patience.

I will be back shortly with my critique of Mr. Hamblin’s BofM challenge.

----------------------------------

”Sister, Pratt, I hope you will not expose me, for if I suffer, all must suffer; so do not expose me. ... If you should tell, I will ruin your reputation; remember that. ...” (Joseph Smith, as reported by Sarah Pratt, first wife of Apostle Orson Pratt, as quoted in John C. Bennett, The History of the Saints; or, An Expose of Joe Smith and Mormonism [boston: Leland & Whiting, 1842], 231)

[Ray Agostini]

Dan (Vogel),

It's difficult to read your post because you mixed up the quotation codes. A lot of people have this problem. But I will try to decipher it later.

If you want to email me your post before posting I'd be happy to make sure your codes are correct, and thus you won't have that problem. I only charge 5 cents a line.

Our webmaster has corrected the problem. For free.

[MAsh]

I will be back shortly with my critique of Mr. Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

All he has to do is show that the Maya not only believed in Universalism but used the same proof texts from the Bible, because that is what the BofM does. Actually, that would be unfair to expect Mr. Gardener to counter 19c parallels with archaeology.

This is really funny, Dan. It shows you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the nature of the available evidence from either Mesoamerica or the Near East. You do not understand the evidence. You do not understand the methodologies. You do not understand the limitations. You do not understand the questions.

Yet would be nice to have some Hebrew inscription or Christian iconography.

Yes it would. And it would be nice to have the same things for early Christianity, wouldn't it. So, if you think it is so easy, take my challenge. Stop whining about how mean everyone is. Stop saying you'll do it soon. Stop misunderstanding and misrepresenting the nature of the challenge. Show me "a Hebrew inscription or Christian iconography" from Mediterranean Christianity that tells us anything substantive about Christianity. Based on archaeological evidence and Roman royal inscriptions alone (the two types of surviving evidence from Precolumbia before 400 AD), what can you tell me about Mediterranean Christianity?

[A Random Catholic]

Why do you keep drawing a distinction between royal inscriptions and archaeological evidence? Isn't the former a subset of the latter? What's excluded beyond texts that we only have because of the scribal stream? And how can you be so certain that the Nephites were aniconographic?

[juliann]

This is really funny, Dan. It shows you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the nature of the available evidence from either Mesoamerica or the Near East. You do not understand the evidence. You do not understand the methodologies. You do not understand the limitations. You do not understand the questions.

And this is where I see the greatest value of a Mormon studies programs...they will raise the bar. The new commandment that has already been passed down (and which DV reacted to with disdain) is that you can no longer just be a (ex)Mormon who knows Mormonism...you must know something else.

Why in the world this group of untrained critics that pursue LDS think that they can claim JS robbed the NT for ideas while knowing nothing about methods of study of the NT is astounding.

[Bill Hamblin]

Why do you keep drawing a distinction between royal inscriptions and archaeological evidence? Isn't the former a subset of the latter? What's excluded beyond texts that we only have because of the scribal stream? And how can you be so certain that the Nephites were aniconographic?

I am trying to create a methodological analogy. From Mesoamerica we have archaeological evidence. Inscriptions and other forms of epigraphy are, of course archaeological evidence (though historians often distinguish between textual and non-textual archaeological data). However, from the Mediterranean world (particularly Egypt), we also have papyrological and other types of non-inscriptional textual evidence. The ecology of Mesoamerica basically guarantees that Mesoamerican codices will not survive in standard environmental conditions. And, indeed, as far as I am aware, no non-epigraphic texts survive from Mesoamerica from before 400 AD. We also have private inscriptions (e.g. funerary) from the Old World, a category of data we do not have from pre-400 AD Mesoamerica. Thus papyrological texts and private inscriptions are categories of textual evidence which archaeologists have discovered in from the Mediterranean world which do not exist in Mesoamerica, and hence must be excluded from consideration to simulate the limitations of evidence from Mesoamerica. Thus, you can use Mediterranean royal inscriptions because that type of text survives from Mesoamerica. You cannot use other types of archaeologically discovered texts from the Mediterranean because those categories of texts do not exist in Mesoamerica.

I do not KNOW the Nephites were aniconic. My position is there is no reason to assume they were iconic, especially given the aniconic biblical tradition, and the occasional condemnations of idolatry in the BOM. Therefore, the not uncommon anti-Mormon assumption that it should be easy to find iconographic evidence of the Nephites is faulty at best.

[A Random Catholic]

We also have private inscriptions (e.g. funerary) from the Old World, a category of data we do not have from pre-400 AD Mesoamerica.

I'm sorry, I'm still missing something. What about the images and (brief) text on ceramics and jade from Maya tombs? There are even large glyphs painted onto plastered walls of some of those tombs, although I don't know if any of them are early enough to count for purposes of the analogy. Indeed, I contend that we have far too much funerary art and texts from that period relative to other categories. Our view of the Maya culture is probably skewed because we've constructed it largely upon what they buried with nobles. So anyway, why shouldn't something like graffiti from the catacombs count?

[Bill Hamblin]

What about the images and (brief) text on ceramics and jade from Maya tombs? There are even large glyphs painted onto plastered walls of some of those tombs, although I don't know if any of them are early enough to count for purposes of the analogy. Indeed, I contend that we have far too much funerary art and texts from that period relative to other categories. Our view of the Maya culture is probably skewed because we've constructed it largely upon what they buried with nobles. So anyway, why shouldn't something like graffiti from the catacombs count?

1- I believe all of this comes from noble or royal burials, not private common burials.

2- I believe all of this comes from post-400 AD tombs.

If you know of some pre-400 inscriptions from private tombs, I'll change the challenge.

But even if you included third century Christian mortuary inscriptions it would tell us almost nothing except that Christians existed. You really couldn't even tell if they were a religious group or a civic organization or merchants or craftsmen. I believe Peter and Paul and mentioned in one funerary inscription, but this tells us nothing about Peter or Paul except they were associated Christians. The name Christ generally appears abbreviated as an X (from the Greek Chi), so we wouldn't even know who Christ was or why these people are called Christians.

But unless we have pre-400 private burials with inscriptions from Mesoamerica, this type of data cannot be used, because it is not found in Mesoamerica.

[Bill Hamblin]

Vogel:

As to mind-reading, which is a favorite pass-time with apologists, I will note but one example from an author for whom you undoubtedly have respect.

There is a major, and crucial difference between Bushman's statements and Vogel's. Bushman reports what was in Joseph's mind based on specific statements by Joseph himself as to what was in his mind. In other words, Bushman summarizes Joseph's own self-description of what was in his mind. Vogel on the other hand, tells us what was in Joseph's mind in the complete absence of any data whatsoever, or, even worse, in direct contradiction to what Joseph himself said. (The example of Vogel's claims regarding Joseph's belief about a "true" but ahistorical BOM are a classic example.) The fact that Vogel does not recognize the difference between these two methodologies speaks volumes about his methodological naivet

[A Random Catholic]

I GET IT!!! (And there was much rejoicing). There are certainly Maya funerary images and text from Book of Mormon times, but I am unaware of any from private (as contrasted with noble) burials. For that matter, I am unaware of any burials of Maya commoners.

There might be relevent stuff from caves or underwater, but I dunno. Anyway, when the Graydon Snyder book comes, I'll nose through it and lend it to Cinepro via that cheap UPS round-trip thing if he likes. Thanks very kindly.

[Brant Gardner]

Dan Vogel:

As I said I haven

[cinepro]

I asked:

What will it mean if/when the challenge is met?

Bill replied:

I have already explained what I think it will mean. Nothing. What we can learn about a religion based solely on archaeological evidence varies according to the quantity and quality of the evidence, the nature of the religion, etc. We are not arguing that information about religion can never be obtained from archaeology alone, only that religion is often invisible from archaeology alone. I'm not going to answer this question again.

Why don't you just present your evidence?

Let me see...you want me to present evidence to prove...nothing?

I have 0 (zero) interest in early Christianity. None. I got some referrals from some people who do have an interest in the subject, and found some people who felt it might be possible to meet your challenge. But I'm not going to waste their time or mine on something I don't care about.

Frankly, I suspected as much, and I'm glad you were honest enough to admit it.

Now, if the situation were reversed, and I had presented a challenge that meant "nothing", how much time would you spend on it?

I am very interested in the Book of Mormon. Why don't we come up with a challenge that can prove something about the Book of Mormon? Maybe even a falsifiable theory! That would be novel and exciting.

Let's start a new thread where you can outline some of your theories regarding Book of Mormon claims, based on your methodology of interpreting the text.

First, I'd like to get your general ideas on how you see the Book of Mormon peoples relating to the "other" peoples. What percentage of the population? How does it vary throughout the 1000+ years? What kind of scope do you give the Nephites at their peak of power? How many Christians do you think might have been in Mesoamerica from 33-200AD? How many non-Christians?

It's stuff like this that I'm interested in.

[juliann]

Now, if the situation were reversed, and I had presented a challenge that meant "nothing", how much time would you spend on it?

Cinepro, step back and think about what you have just confirmed.

[Bill Hamblin]

Let me see...you want me to present evidence to prove...nothing?

Sorry you don't understand. There are many tests in life that can demonstrate a proposition with one result, but cannot disprove a proposition with a negative result. (For example, a test result may demonstrate you don't have cancer, but might not prove you don't have some other medical condition. Is that test, to rule out cancer, not worth taking?)

[sidewinder]

No one is taking the challenge because quite frankly, it's absurd. First of all, there is no one out there who, "thinks it should be easy to find conclusive proof of the BOM through archaeological evidence." No one, except the most dogmatic fundamentalist christians, think it should be easy to find conclusive proof of the Bible even given that Diocletian's persecutions of Christianity weren't successful. And as the dominate world religion, can anyone definitively reconstruct early Christianity? (I'm implicitly observing you've asked two different questions here)

No, I think the skeptics have been quite fair in their demands from the apologists. We arn't talking about reconstructing the Nephite civilization and religion in all it's nuance. Rather, the focus is on mundane things. Prove for instance, the existence of steel. As the argument goes, all the persecutions in the world wouldn't wipe out the very trace of steel production. Or the horses, for that matter. (but as dan noted, it's easier to translate BOM words mean "whatever we happen to find in mesoamerica")

I believe that aliens built the pyramids. I am in communication with those aliens, and they have given a detailed explanation of how they did it. But unfortunately, because the aliens were driven off by the Egyptians, we have no way to reconstruct those events from archeology alone. And my challenge to all of you who disbelieve me:

Lets say America is destroyed in a thermo-nuclear war, including all written records and digital storage. How would you reconstruct the history of the United States based on the archeological remains alone?

Think the admin will pin this one to the top, as if it were a brilliant unanswerable challenge?

[cinepro]

Sorry you don't understand. There are many tests in life that can demonstrate a proposition with one result, but cannot disprove a proposition with a negative result. (For example, a test result may demonstrate you don't have cancer, but might not prove you don't have some other medical condition. Is that test, to rule out cancer, not worth taking?)

Sorry, but I think I'll give up on your analogies. I don't see how your "medical test" analogy applies to your "challenge analogy" in the slightest.

It amazes me that you are trying to prove something by an analogy, but then admit that the analogy has nothing to do with what you're trying to prove. If it were a real analogy, than finding the evidence you seek for ancient Christianity would also imply that we should be able to find similar evidence for the ancient Book of Mormon peoples. It would work that way, because the conditions of the two are analogous. But since they're not (as many people have tried to point out to you), all you "challenge" proves is that it may be possible to create a theoretical situation where you can't detect the presence of the ancient Christians in Rome. And since you're creating the analogy, even if someone were to meet it, there is nothing that would stop you from changing the conditions to exclude their evidences. You could come out with Hamblin's challenge II. ("This time, you can't use X evidences either. Now see if you could do it.")

You make it sound as if there is just a "test for cancer", but there is no such thing. And in a medical test, the thinking would go along the lines of "If you have x condition, then we expect the test to show x result." Then, by performing the test, a doctor can start to figure out what condition you have. In order for a test to be used the way you infer, then beforehand, if you asked a doctor what a positive or negative result mean, I don't think he would say "nothing".

If a doctor thought I had cancer, and a doctor recommended a test, and said that a negative result would mean I don't have gout, and a positive result would mean nothing, I would ask him what gout had to do with cancer. If he said nothing, I probably wouldn't take the test. It would be a waste of time.

As far as I know, the "conditions" of the Book of Mormon have yet to be defined in such a way that they can be tested. It's not like "cancer" or other physical conditions that doctors test for, it's more like the etheral "chi" or some other alternative/ new age medical theory. There are no tests for it. You just go to someone who says they know what they're doing, and they give you some herbs or wave their hands over you, and then you feel better.

And if the "chi" theory doesn't work, it's not because there is no "chi", or the person doesn't know what they're doing, it's becuase of some other etheral force that wasn't taken into account.

So let's make a real Book of Mormon challenge. Based on your knowledge of the claims of the Book, can you fill in the blanks?

"If the claims of the Book of Mormon are true, we would expect to see (insert testable and/or verifiable condition here)"

"If the claims of the Book of Mormon are not true, then we would expect to see (insert testable and/or verfiable condition here)"

And instead of working backwards by searching for existing situations that can be applied to the Book of Mormon, let's see if we can find some "challenges" where you don't know what the outcome will be. Since we don't know what the outcome will be, we can define the conditions beforehand, and then no one can complain if they "lose".

That's the kind of challenge I'm really interested in.

[Bill Hamblin]

No one is taking the challenge because quite frankly, it's absurd.

It is no more absurd than the demands frequently made by many anti-Mormons, including many here on this board. Recognizing its absurdity is an important part of the exercise.

First of all, there is no one out there who, "thinks it should be easy to find conclusive proof of the BOM through archaeological evidence."

You're quite simply wrong here. It is a fundamental and oft repeated assertion of anti-Mormons that archaeology has decisively disproven the BOM. That you, personally, may not believe this doesn't make the challenge an important counterpoise to those who do.

Lets say America is destroyed in a thermo-nuclear war, including all written records and digital storage. How would you reconstruct the history of the United States based on the archeological remains alone?

Of course you couldn't. Thanks for making my point. There are many things archaeology can tell us. But there are many, many more things it cannot. What many anti-Mormons do is demand that the LDS produce proof of the BOM from archaeological data which it cannot, by its very nature, provide. Then, when we fail to do so, they insist that the BOM has been conclusively demonstrated to be a fraud.

[Dan Vogel]

Mr Hamblin et al.,

Mr. Hamblin has announced that he will not tolerate any discussion of the

[Dan Vogel]

Joel,

FYI, DP and CI were using an argumentum ad hominem (circumstantial), or sometimes called the argument from special circumstances, which is to say:

[Calm]

Is there any credible evidence that he attempted to use the stone for such things?

[Dan Vogel]

Mr. Hamblin,

All he has to do is show that the Maya not only believed in Universalism but used the same proof texts from the Bible, because that is what the BofM does. Actually, that would be unfair to expect Mr. Gardener to counter 19c parallels with archaeology.

This is really funny, Dan. It shows you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the nature of the available evidence from either Mesoamerica or the Near East. You do not understand the evidence. You do not understand the methodologies. You do not understand the limitations. You do not understand the questions.

What

[A Random Catholic]

As I mentioned, I've ordered what Prof. Hamblin characterizes as a single source for all of the pre-Constantinian Christian archaeology of the Roman world. So a moment ago a package shows up from a bookseller for me, and it contains a slim volume weighing about an ounce! I'm thinking, "Uh oh! We don't have much to work with here after all!"

Fortunately, it's a little motivational book from my dad. (phew)

[Dan Vogel]

calmoriah Posted on Nov 15 2004, 12:19 PM

Is there any credible evidence that he attempted to use the stone for such things?

With regard to treasure-seeing, or stone gazing, there is very credible evidence. DP admitted that Joseph Smith was a money-digger when I debated him on TV. Mike Quinn's book Early Mormonism and the Magic World View is a good place to find a discussion of the basic evidence.

With regard to the lost 116-pages, there is no source that says he used his seer stone to search for it, although in the preface of the 1830 ed. of the BofM he says he made a serious effort to recover the MS. My point is: if the stone worked, why did he not use it to find the lost MS. This would seem to have been an optimal time to use such an instrument. He said he could not even discover the person or persons who took it.

Contrast this with his being able to tell Emma that the plates were safe. While working in Macedon shortly after removing the plates from the hill and hiding them in the woods, Emma rushed to Joseph because it was feared that his enemies were searching for the plates. Joseph took the stone out of his pocket, according to his mother's history, and looked into it and then declared that the plates were safe. Now, why didn't he do this to find the lost MS or at least discover who had taken them? The answer, as I see it, is because he was not in control of the latter situation. That is usually the case with psychics: they succeed when in control and fail when they are not.