Not so easy?

[Confidential Informant]

What’s not funny is the way you misrepresent what I said. The point I was trying to make with CI is that he does not understand the limits of methodology because he thinks Gardener’s approach can somehow counter mine. As I explained, we are operating in different paradigms.

And this is probably partly my fault, as I was unclear about my reasoning for citing Gardener's work. I never meant to imply that Brant's work is a direct contradiction to your efforts. If I gave that impression, I apologize, it was not my intent.

My point (I think, there have been so many) was that you dismiss the B of M in its entirety as a product of the 19th century and you point to the Universalist ideas etc., that you purport to find in the B of M. (Or you can point to the perceived paralells between anti-Masonic rhetoric in the 1830's and the Gadianton's in the B of M, take your pick). I guess what I'm looking for is some explanation of why Brant's thesis that the Gadiantons actually represent a faction of the Mayan army is not preferable to your thesis that it simply literary analogy for the Masons (and I know I've over-simplified both views, so chill out).

Thus, I was speaking of Brant's work as a counter to some of your other works, and not necessarily your work in your most recent tome.

If you are alluding to the work of Margaret Barker, which I know is a favorite with you, then you need to keep in mind the very controversial and fringe nature of her work.

LOL, I just love the hypocrisy of this statement. I'm chastised for so easily dismission your work, then you turn right around dismiss Ms. Barker's work with nothing more than the excuse that her work is "controversial" and "fringe."

Unfortunately for you, she has the proper qualifications so that even if her work is controversial she is taken seriously by the academy (in fact, I think her work is being taken more and more seriously over the years). Of course, the interesting thing about her work is that she's reaching her conclusions completely independent of any of that nefarious "Mormon" influence. (In fact, she hadn't even read the LDS standard works until a little over a year ago!)

However, she isn't the only one. The openess theology movement is also an interesting movement that LDS are finding interesting. The really fascinating thing about the totality of it is that the scholars are moving toward the LDS, not away from us. (See recent scholarship of doctrines of deification/theosis). I find it interesting that the more we find about about mesoamerica, the more the B of M appears to fit quite snugly within that milieu.

But you and I are again derailing the thread. Let's allow Dr. Hamblin to respond to your critique of his challenge and see what comes of it.

C.I.

[Ray Agostini]

I think that Dan makes some excellent points about the fallacy (to some degree anyway) of "proof by analogy". It does seem to leave the BoM very lacking, on the surface. But it does not convince me that the case for historicity can be closed, which I think Dan would agree with, but it certainly leaves it a bit battered.

Very briefly: I notice your mention, Dan, of Big Foot, and UFOs, though both controversial I recently remember reading about some interesting evidences for some kind of "Big Foot" creatures, not unlike I suppose the recent shocking discovery of "hobbits" which one archaeologist described to be as shocking to him as if a UFO had landed before his very eyes. And on that subject, I have studied the UFO phenomenon since the late 60s, and as one who witnessed several UFOs in 2001, in the presence of some ten other witnesses, and confirmed by official bodies, I don't care what the dismissive critics say about that, I know what I saw with my own two eyes, which confirmed to me evidence I had been studying for 30 years. Even my diversion, as I am doing now, will sound "weird" to many, and again this is a kind of "proof by analogy", but Dan, it tends to make me think you may be a little too dismissive. But I don't blame you if you hadn't seen what I did.

Which brings me to the other point: The "other" evidence/witnesses. Too much for me to reject in toto. But you've done a great job in your reasoning and presentation Dan. But as Bill's posts only convince us of, for this thread anyway, proof by analogy, your posts only convince us (or me anyway) that that we can't take proof by anaolgy as the final word. Incidentally, these debates tend to become very rhetorical, and the "winner" might prematurely be declared the one who presents the best arguments, not necessarily the truth.

[cinepro]

I know what I saw with my own two eyes,

What did you see? Meaning, what was the source of what you saw? I've always understood a "UFO" to be an unidentified object, meaning, the person didn't know what the heck they saw. Were you able to identify yours?

[Dan Vogel]

Mr. Hamblin,

Nov 13 2004, 01:33 PM

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

[Ray Agostini]

I know what I saw with my own two eyes,

What did you see? Meaning, what was the source of what you saw? I've always understood a "UFO" to be an unidentified object, meaning, the person didn't know what the heck they saw. Were you able to identify yours?

I didn't suggest these UFOs were aliens. They might have been, but I can't prove that. I discussed this at length on Exmo-Social, and don't have a great deal of time to go into it now. So I'll summarise.

1) The UFOs, three of them, acted in ways that conventional craft do not, ie, no sound, no identifiable lights as seen on conventional craft, in the end moved with speed unknown to conventional craft, hovered over us displaying transparency in body yet you could not see the inside, and emitting an orange hue similar to many other sightings of this kind, and they were seen by a sole witness, among us, the week before, doing even more amazing things like darting across the sky at incredible speed, which conventional craft cannot do.

2) When on Exmo-Social I was greeted with a lot of skeptism (what do you expect from ex-Mormons who also think the BoM is a wild fairy tale?), so I did some more research, and to my surprise I found several links to the exact phenomena we had seen, and which one board participant tried to explain, but that explanation in the end did not fit even to his satisfaction. So in the end they are UFO, unidentified. But when you have phenomena such as this, confirmed by numerous independent observers, including government bodies, and you have no known aircraft in the vicinity of the time of the UFO activity, then you have something extraordinary on your hands.

3) For the record, I have a friend who is a prominent member of the Australian UFO society, and he tells me that what we saw is a common UFO sighting which has no known explanation. He also loaned me a video which has firsthand accounts of witnesses who in other instances have had encounters of the third kind, actual aliens, and I believe their accounts. But this is all La La land stuff for most people.

My point to this debate is though, don't be so skeptical and dismiss phenomena you don't understand as "hallucination", "auto-suggestion", or other "rational" phenomena just because you don't have an explanation. The tendency to find a "rational" explanation is always there (weather ballons, lightening, etc), but the rationalist should be open-minded too. I know Mormons who reject UFO phenomena as some kind of psychic phenomena. I'm not convinced.

Not insignificant to this debate is that Warren Aston, who is often quoted by FARMS and is the author of In the Footsteps of Lehi (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book 1994) is also a very keen internationally known UFO researcher. He and his wife are also the first ones to bring the Nahom altar to the attention of the scholarly community.

http://farms.byu.edu/viewauthor.php?authorID=128

I have correponded with Warren since about the mid-80s but lost contact with him in recent years, and I don't know what FARMS or the church members think of his UFO studies, which are quite involved and even controversial, some might even say "loopy":

http://theufoconnection.g-vision.com/agenda.shtml

I'd love to know what his opinions are now, and how his thinking has evolved, but he seems to have been out of the LDS scholarly circles for sometime now (probably too involved with UFO phenomena), and I don't know why. Do I think he can be dismissed as a fruitloop? Not at all. This kind of information has been known since the 1940s, but "politically correct" forces have ensured that it is also assigned to the Madhouse.

[Bill Hamblin]

Vogel:

Joseph Smith was consciously using deception to promote God

[Beowulf]

So JS MUST have been lying, since the BofM cannot possibly be true.

This is a truly interesting perspective to start from, when one wants to write a biography about a person.

Dan Vogel first tells us that JS can't be caught out in his lying, since he was, apparently, supremely good at deceiving people. Then he tells us that sometimes he did, indeed, give the show away, and provides a quote from JS to Nancy Rigdon in 1842, about how deception on behalf of the Lord is OK.

Are you going to tell us the circumstances of this quote? Quite plainly (to me anyway), he was writing about the touchy subject of polygamy, which as JS explains, is right when God commands it, and wrong when he does not. (Which as far as I know has ALWAYS been the LDS position on polygamy.)

Hardly an explanation to account for JS' deceit and lying.

You still have not shown why your mind-reading of JS is more accurate than Bushman's, aside from the fact that your mind-reading just happens to support your own preconceived theories.

Yours,

Beowulf

[cinepro]

I know the topic isn't UFO's, but I just had to add:

From FARMS:

Warren P. Aston

A researcher and author whose explorations in Yemen and Oman since 1984 have helped lay the groundwork for increased understanding of the area where Lehi's party traveled through the wilderness and built their ship. He currently lives in California where he continues to research and write.

http://farms.byu.edu/viewauthor.php?authorID=128

From "The UFO Connection":

Discovering the Alien Agenda

presented by Warren Aston

Born in New Zealand, Warren Aston has been researching the UFO Phenomenon for 20 years.

He says humans will develop from a terrestrial to solar species and eventually to a galactic race, and our future lies in the stars.

[Addictio]

Above, in the off-limits pinned thread, Beowulf said:

"The point (again, as I have already pointed out today on another thread) is not that the BofM is therefore *proved*. It just shows that this particular line of argument (lack of recognizable archeological evidence) is not relevant as a line of attack against the BofM."

I suspect this is how many people will interpret the significance of no one taking up Hamblin's "challenge." The problem is that the second sentence of Beowulf's is a non sequitur. Hamblin's challenge does not even purport to show, nor has he argued, that the material culture of the Lehites (or the Jaredites) as reported in the BoM is sufficiently similar to that of the Maya or the Olmec that we would expect to be unable to distinguish them through archaeological investigation. Yet it is only that kind of argument that might justify the kind of sweeping conclusion regarding the lack of archaeological evidence for the existence of BoM peoples that Beowulf wants to draw.

[cinepro]

Once you assume Joseph is lying, then everything means something other than it really means. And notice how there is absolutely no control on Vogel's thesis. How could you possibly prove such a thesis wrong?

The first thing that comes to mind is a set of gold plates, a urimm and thummim, a liahona, a breastplate, and a sword. Or maybe some distinct trace of Book of Mormon peoples that is recognizeable by someone that doesn't already believe in the book's claims.

The mind overflows with possibilities.

[Daniel Peterson]

I would pay $50 to Dr. Peterson if he would cut and paste the entire section about Brother Aston's UFO studies (with slight changes to the wording to make if into a bio instead of a video description) to his bio on the FARMS website (and leave it there for 1 year).

Fifty bucks is chump change, cinepro. Besides, we don't give anybody so lengthy a bio. I don't think, for example, that we've ever informed the world that Lou Midgley, besides having earned a doctorate in political philosophy at Brown University while studying philosophical theology under Paul Tillich at Harvard, is a published expert on fig cultivation. Did you know that I served for a while as a private tutor to the daughter of the Shah of Iran? There's a great deal that we omit from our (typically) one-sentence author bios.

With regard to Warren Aston, I've never ever heard him speak about UFOs (a topic in which I myself was quite interested as a teenager) nor seen anything he's written on the topic. But his explorations on the Arabian peninsula have been pathbreaking and quite sound. If someone thinks otherwise, the obvious option is always open: Prove him wrong by means of superior evidence and analysis.

[Beowulf]

Addictio is absolutely right.

The next place to check is to compare BofM cultural references to items found on the ground in Maya/Olmec, etc. places. Isn't this what has been going on in the Journal of Book or Mormon Studies and its predecessors for the last 30 years?

I don't see the non-sequiter.

The point I make is that we next turn to the text, and dispense with this side-show about DNA. The text of the BofM is where it will make or break, as we always knew it would be.

Beowulf

[Addictio]

I had thought, in my post above, that it was just Beowulf who was misunderstanding the scope and significance of Hamblin's "Challenge." Actually, Hamblin appears to share the same confusion. Thus he writes:

"The problem is not finding traces. The problem is indentifying them. We find lots of pots. How would we know if a pot is Nephite or not?

I note that no one has actually responded to the challenge. "

Hamblin's triumphalist apologetics -- I mean he sounds like Goliath, in his refrain, how many times can someone repeat the same pointless sentence, immediately above? -- are more transparent than he suspects. Once we open the discussion wider than Nephite religion, into archaeological evidence of any kind, we must address the fundamental disconnect between the material culture of the BoM peoples and the material culture of the Olmec and Maya.

The apologetic genius of Hamblin's challenge is that it diverts attention away from what is known about mesoamerican material culture. That's where the focus should be. So, no wonder Hamblin resorts to a mere hypothetical, based upon unrelated events occurring on the other side of the planet. Yes, folks, it really has come to that.

[Bill Hamblin]

we must address the fundamental disconnect between the material culture of the BoM peoples and the material culture of the Olmec and Maya.

Addictio obviously doesn't understand the challenge or what it can or cannot prove. (I note, triumphalistically, that Addictio made no attempt to respond either). I will not repeat the signficance

As to the material culture of the Nephites: By what criteria does Addictio think we should be able to distinguish a Nephite pot from a Maya pot. Do Mormons eat on different porcelin than Baptists or Agnostics? Would Nephite houses be built of stone or would of a different cut?

Since Addictio thinks this should be so easy, I'll refer him to another challenge I made:

Distinguish between a pre-Babylonian Israelite and a Canaanite on the basis of material culture alone. How can you determine if a house or city in modern Israel-Palestine was inhabited by a Canaanite or an Israelite? If you think it is such a simple matter, go ahead, do it. No more posturing about how meaningless it is, just do it.

[Bill Hamblin]

Vogel:

If the Nephites were real, what about their culture prevents you from verifying their existence?

How do you determine ethnicity, religious belief, political affiliation, geneaology, etc. from material culture? (See my new challenge to Addictio above.)

[Addictio]

Beowulf said:

"The next place to check is to compare BofM cultural references to items found on the ground in Maya/Olmec, etc. places. Isn't this what has been going on in the Journal of Book or Mormon Studies and its predecessors for the last 30 years?"

Actually, no. See below.

If you want to know what scholars with no axe to grind -- at least as far as the BoM is concerned -- actually think, read Michael Coe and Richard Diehl. I'll wager that in the last 20 years they have never been quoted, and used in support of a BoM- apologetic point, in the JBMS.

[Bill Hamblin]

Vogel:

So, the fact that Bushman

[kolobian]

I find myself sympathetic to Mr. Vogel's position as I go through this thread, although not always to the way in which he defends it. Thus I thought to add something myself, although not wishing to "hijack" this thread (nor perpetrate any other form of cyber-terrorism).

In any case, it seems to me that the secular historian is confronted by a dilemma of sorts. Either he (in this case) can not provide any history of Joseph Smith, or he can offer history that will necessarily involve creating a narrative for which evidence may be lacking. The problem in the first case is that one would be subject to the mormon argument that "no history for the presence of the Book of Mormon can be provided other than the one the Prophet gives." (that is not a quote, althoug this surely exists in places--its just my rendering). Of course, once an explanation is given that meets this burden, it will obviously differ from what Joseph said (that was rather the point to begin with, right?).

Mr. Vogel takes on the first horn of this dilemma, Prof. Bushman the second. Bushman is neither "uncritical" nor "simplisitc" about sources, and its silly to say so.

So, the fact that Bushman’s speculations about what Smith was thinking at any given time, is only different than mine because he has decided to trust Joseph Smith.

This just seems wrong. Bushman simply reports (what he does is more elegant, but "reports" will suffice) what the sources say; Mr. Vogel offers an explanation from a tradition that cannot accept what they say, requiring an alterative explanation. That doesn't mean those who do it differently are somehow worse, but I don't see why its a bad move. I don't think Meyer or Eliade considered ancient religionists to be saying true things, but they did not think those people were "lying." They had patterns of behavior that called for explanation--isn't this the role of the historian? Joseph himself, as we all know, said he would not blame anyone for not believing him, and I think this was more than just rhetoric.

My point is that while its true that more evidence is better than less, this isn't necessarily the criterion in play: Explanatory power also counts. Even if there was no evidence for Mr. Vogel's views (which some here may believe), that does not mean it would fail to provide an explanation. Does it account for the events, is the relevant question. If, then, someone can create a simply way of explaining the same things, that would be progress. Could a simpler way involve angels and visions? I have long lamented on these pages (?) our inability to sort that question out very precisely.

[Daniel Peterson]

read Michael Coe and Richard Diehl.  I'll wager that in the last 20 years they have never been quoted, and used in support of a BoM- apologetic point, in the JBMS.

How much are you willing to wager? If you'll make it worth my while -- I won't have much time over the next few days, and then I go out of town -- I'll find the passage where I myself cited Michael Coe to make an apologetic point.

Of course, I don't think that it was in the JBMS. Would another FARMS publication serve just as well?

Do you have a PayPal account? How shall we transfer the funds?

[kolobian]

I'm beaten to much of my argument by Prof. Hamblin. However, on the points of difference, my question remains essentially unchanged: doesn't the particular character of the Prophet's claims allow for "mind reading" in a way that Mr. Vogel's own claims do not? This may be a more responsive formulation.

[Bill Hamblin]

Vogel:

Hamblin alludes to a side discussion we had about Moroni chapters 7 and 10 regarding Joseph Smith

[Bill Hamblin]

Kolobian

Even if there was no evidence for Mr. Vogel's views (which some here may believe), that does not mean it would fail to provide an explanation. Does it account for the events, is the relevant question.

Of course, all of Vogel's enterprise is a massive exercise in the fallacy of the possible proof.

Personally I find the view that JS was delusion much more reasonable for an agnostic to adopt than the Vogel's position of pious fraud. Joseph having hallucinations of theophanies seems far more coherent and reasonable than believing that he would try to create tin plates to bamboozle the yokels into accepting Christ, and would be willing to go to martyrdom in testimony of the alleged truthfulness of his concious fabrications.

[Bill Hamblin]

kolobian:

doesn't the particular character of the Prophet's claims allow for "mind reading" in a way that Mr. Vogel's own claims do not? This may be a more responsive formulation.

I'm sorry I've missed the antecedent here. Could you explain it a bit more?

[kolobian]

I'm sorry I've missed the antecedent here. Could you explain it a bit more?

Prof. Hamblin:

My mistake. To clarify, my argument is that one seeking a naturalistic explanation would need to come up with some way of accounting for Joseph's statements that would not take what he said at face value. There doesn't seem to be any way around some "mind reading," although you may be right that Mr. Vogel's effort is not the simplist possible (my original claim doesn't take that up--so we may be at unity of opinion). Thus, I don't think its unreasonable for a historian to speculate on such matters insofar as evidence is limited.

However, if you were to decide against Mr. Vogel's statements on face value, you would not have access to this kind of a reason for disregarding or modifying what he says about himself. My argument above is that he can make a limited kind of claim: one that justifies his mode of inquiry into (if not his particular theory about) the Prophet's history, but does not demand that he defend mind reading more generally.

Thanks for your reply.

[wenglund]

As I explained, we are operating in different paradigms.

This, I believe, is an important point.

As I understand it, Dan Vogel has used the prisom of his naturalistic worldview to examine the supernaturalistic worldview of LDS in general, and Joseph Smith and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon in particular.

This is not problematic to those who share DV's naturalistic world view. Even his presupposition that Joseph was lying, would make sense since any claims to naturalistic experiences would have relatively few naturalistic explanations (either the person is lying, mistaken, or delusional)

It is, however, problematic to those of differing paradigms. Those who accept or allow for the supernatural may rightly reject DV's presupposition, and hence the remainder of his somewhat circular argument based thereon.

In other words, if one doesn't accept the possibility of the supernatural, then DV's argument may bear sway (assuming it is stated in a logically sound and factually accurate way). Whereas, if one allows for the possibility of the supernatural, then DV's argument won't stand. Simple as that.

The point of Bill's experiment, as well as the request which have been made for Dan Vogel to disclose his methodology, is to test the logical soundness of DV's argument using his own paradigm. If his argument doesn't stand up to the rigors of his own paradigm, then it may be rejected by any and all, regardless of one's world view.

I hope this helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-