Not so easy?

[kolobian]

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.

That's unfortunate. You're one of the people here who knows how to debate. I enjoy your posts.

[Bill Hamblin]

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.

I note, as you depart, that you have not responded to any of my substantive critiques of your claims.

[Bill Hamblin]

Maybe Dan's right. Maybe I'm just stupid. However, I still fail to see the problem with asking Dan why he thinks Smith could have written the B of M when most contemporary sources, both pro and con, did not consider him capable of such.

Using Vogelesque mind-reading techniques, I will posit that it is because he doesn't have an answer.

[cinepro]

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.

Dan, while only a few are participating in the conversation, this thread has over 2300 views, which means there are many, many people who are reading it.

So even though your posts might seem lost on the few who respond, you can be sure there are many others who are reading along and agree with you. And the back-and-forth, even (or especially) with those who respond weakly or immaturely, is extremely educational, and helps us understand the different sides of the debate, and the strengths and weaknesses in the evidence backing up different arguments.

Obviously, no one wants to waste their time, and you've got to spend time writing books to pay the bills. But if you can stick around, you can be sure there are many of us reading both sides, and learning from both the good and bad arguments and responses.

[Tchild2]

I second what Cinepro has stated. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading your responses, and feel that you have acted with a maturity and calmness that escaped some of the other participants.

I would offer any of your detractors just one challenge; show us the golden plates. Show us the source of the Book of Mormon. Then we can all have an equal playing ground for investigative study.

[Bill Hamblin]

I would offer any of your detractors just one challenge; show us the golden plates.

Show me the original manuscript of ANY biblical text or ANY classical text.

[Tchild2]

Show me the original manuscript of ANY biblical text or ANY classical text.

Who is claiming that the bible or any classical text is literal, factual or linear history? I wouldn't use a book I deem "not literal" to counter another book I believe to be not factual or literal.

Lets just get to the first cause; the golden plates. They were taken away, why? Who decides why, God or the person claiming to speak for God, and how could we ever know the difference?

[Confidential Informant]

the golden plates.

[Beowulf]

Since you do not have the Gold Plates, you have to rely on what JS said about the text, and (even better!) rely on the text itself.

In other words, dear friends, READ THE BOOK!

Beowulf

(Sorry for shouting)

The above does not apply to Dan Vogel, of course, since I presume he knows the BofM text fairly well.

However, I concur with Bill Hamblin, in that Vogel has made an assumption about what JS was thinking that simply cannot be backed up in the historical record.

When JS says that the BofM is the "word of God", he was not saying "I made it up under inspiration".

That is an assumption that falls into the McMurrin camp of "angels don't bring golden plates to young boys." Therefore...

[William the Conqueror]

Show me the original manuscript of ANY biblical text or ANY classical text.

We don't have them. But to the inerrantist, the originals were completely without error, a statement of faith of course. What we have today has scribal errors and possibly some additions such as the Mark 16:17 - 18 passage which is not in the earliest (?) or best manuscripts. Also a difference in the name of one of the giants of Gath between Samuel (or Kings) and the comparative passage in Chronicles. However none of the errors affect DOCTRINE.

To the form/source critic such as Julius Wellhausen (late 1800s), the scripture was replete with errors. Bultmann also. Bultmann and Bornkamm (his student who preached at my seminary in 1973), said the 'I' sayings in John were edited by early patriarchs and church fathers and were not the statements of Jesus. I read Bornkamm's 'Jesus of Nazareth' for my New Testament class and gave it a very critical review for which I received a critical grade.

Hence those that say there are only three choices for Jesus, Liar, Lunatic, or Lord are leaving out a fourth choice, Legend. It would be the form critics who would consider Him legend, in other words to Bultmann faith could not be based on history as the Scripture is unreliable.

[juliann]

I'm not going to take on Claremont because Claremont is not the monolith that you think it is. Claremont can't control all who pass through, some are bound to have opinions that differ from that institution. And you have no authority to speak for Claremont. Nor do I seek the appoval of any institution. I do not see myself in an adversarial relationship with them, as you seem to wish were the case. It may be that some at Claremont will take issue with either my approach or interpretations, but that is the nature of scholarship. You can be PC as you wish and I guarantee that someone is going to disagree with you. That is, if you ever publish something.

"Rules of engagement" is the magic word. But I've explained that in another thread. I do have to point out the utter irony of your proclamation that I cannot speak for CGU while I am being trained there in those rules of engagement...yet you feel quite justified in speaking for JS whom you have never met. No one has said that you are in an adversarial relationship with CGU....as I said, your book was mentioned at the conference positively. However, I know of at least one not happy scholar who found out that you had no credentials. Fair or not...that matters if you expect to engage an institution that produces those credentials.

As to DeChaine, what he recommends for the academy might work as an institutional policy is not a rule that independent scholars must follow. Nor does it imply that other approaches are invalid. If they choose not to deal with certain questions or they prohibit anyone at Claremont from doing so, that is their prerogative, but I don't have to follow it. I'm only concerned with specific criticism to specific interpretations. But, if they truly are going to be inclusive, then they must consider all points of view. Indeed, they may have to, whether they want to or not.

You still don't understand...you are confusing "approach" with "conclusion". The problem is in your selective use of sources (and from what I saw in the introduction...a very shotgun approach to supporting your psychologizing and skepticism. ) You were throwing in sources like Hume without supplying any geographical or cultural relevance to JS. Hume may matter but this is parallel-itis if you do not connect the dots. Further, do you not see that your critique of CGU is what you are engaging in...exclusivity? For instance, you say on pg x in regards to testimony that a treasure trunk settled away from them into the earth,

"Those who believe that Smith literally translated the FOM from anciently engraved gold plates or who dismiss his treasure seeking as irrelevant have difficulty with Thompson's testimony."

I could construct a myriad of other inclusive possibilities...you have settled on a rigidly exclusive either/or approach.

As to McKechnie, I haven't read this book, so I do not know the context of the statement. I suspect, but could be wrong, that since his subject is the first century of Chritianity, he might be taking a pluralistic approach since there was no one Christianity but many. If so, I can see how a Mormon would be encourage by such a view, and I have no objection to it.

McKechnie impresses me as a moderate swimming in a liberal ocean...a good example of how important using those rules of engagement. Plurality is especially important for Mormons in a much more down home kind of way. One of Barlow's commandments was that we cannot continue to ignore the many strands of Mormonism.

Because you are asking a complex question and expecting a simple answer. You are asking a writer to write a treatise on a web-board.

Anyone who has spent any time in a dept of religion would be astonished at this (as you can see). You should be able to summarize your methodology in a few paragraphs...which is why we are left with nothing but questions about your understanding. The first thing you are going to be asked is your methodology. It is as if you walked into a classroom and refused to give the principal a lesson plan because it is just too complicated.

[A Random Catholic]

"Barlow gave "5 commandments" for the study of Mormonism which were well received. Among them was "Thou shalt not assume if you know 19th century Mormonism that you understand Mormonism" and "Mormons studying Mormonism must know something else". Those who do not were considered to be in a Mormon ghetto."

Semi-OT: If I had a nickel for everybody who violated the First Commandment, I'd have, er, a lot of nickels. Like, way more than I could carry all at once. What were the other three?

[japanguy]

Dan,

Thanks for bringing us your opinions. I feel that it is good to look at things from as many points of view as possible. It helps us to understand others and we might even learn something.

Confidential,

I don't feel that you have the qualifications to be talking about languages and translations. Please leave it to those that have a PHD. Smile.... Sorry just couldn't help myself.

(by the way you aren't from Morgan,Ut are you)

Thanks,

Japanguy

[Confidential Informant]

I don't feel that you have the qualifications to be talking about languages and translations.  Please leave it to those that have a PHD.

That's good, considering I don't believe I've ever addressed the topic.

(by the way you aren't from Morgan,Ut are you)

Nope, but I wouldn't mind living there. I hear it is beautiful.

C.I.

[religiously free]

"A Code of Conduct for Effective Rational Discussion":

The Truth-Seeking Principle: Each participant should be committed to the task of earnestly searching for the truth or at least the most defensible position on the issue at stake. Therefore, one should be willing to examine alternative positions seriously, looking for insights in the positions of others, and allow other participants to present arguments for or raise objections to any position held with regard to any disputed issue. (T. Edward Damer,Attacking Faulty Reasoning, 5)

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.

I agree I don't see the truth seeking principle operating either. The fallacy of ad hominem is resorted to, much too frequently in an apparent attempt to shift focus off the argument or issues presented onto the challenger. There is no point in attempting discussions with any individual who consistently uses this tactic as they are not sincere in wanting to seek truth.

[Daniel Peterson]

I agree I don't see the truth seeking principle operating either.  The fallacy of ad hominem is resorted to, much too frequently in an apparent attempt  to shift focus off the argument or issues presented onto the challenger.    There is no point in attempting discussions with any individual who consistently uses this tactic as they are not sincere in wanting to seek truth.

This from a person who dogmatizes on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon without having read it or even having much of an idea of what's in it, who issues pronouncements on the implications for religion of contemporary physics while professing that she knows "nothing" about the most important theory to emerge in physics over the past one hundred years (quantum theory), who dismissed the FARMS writers on DNA as unqualified while entirely clueless about what their qualifications are and who rejected their arguments without knowing those arguments.

If that's the "truth seeking principle," I hope it's rare on this board and everywhere else.

[cinepro]

Show me the original manuscript of ANY biblical text or ANY classical text.

Hmmm....

I don't think the issue is one of ancient or classical texts from days of old not lasting. I think the issue is one of durable metal plates from 1830 only being shown under dubious circumstances to 11 inexpert and impressionable friends, then disappearing. Along with the other physcial evidences such as a sword, breastplate, liahona, urim and thummim, and stone box.

How long were the Dead Sea Scrolls hidden in the caves at Qumran? After their discovery (by young, undeducated boys no less), why has God see fit to allow them to remain on this Earth?

Compared to the Book of Mormon, how important would you say the writings of Abraham and Joseph and Egypt were? Yet God saw fit to allow hundreds upon hundreds of people to see these ancient egyptian texts, with portions of the original available for expert and novice alike to study.

Unfortunately, there are also dozens upon dozens of archaeological frauds concerning the ancient inhabitants of the Americas. Even LDS scholars like James E. Talmage have taken part in debunking them. But where the evidence is gone, so goes the danger of debunkment.

So here my questions...

1. Why did God hide all the physical evidence of the Book of Mormon (plates, sword, breastplate, liahona, urim and thummim, stone box), with the exception of the seer stone, which had a 19th century history?

2. Why has God allowed other ancient texts to be displayed and studied, with no need for an angel to spirit them off into the night?

3. Regarding witnesses and plates, there is another book of claimed divine origin for which good, honest men testify to its truthfulness.

http://www.strangite.org/Law.htm

T E S T I M O N Y .

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, to whom this Book of the Law of the Lord shall come, that James J. Strang has the plates of the ancient Book of the Law of the Lord given to Moses, from which he translated this law, and has shown them to us. We examined them with our eyes, and handled them with our hands. The engravings are beautiful antique workmanship, bearing a striking resemblance to the ancient oriental languages; and those from which the laws in this book were translated are eighteen in number, about seven inches and three-eights wide, by nine inches long, occasionally embellished with beautiful pictures.

And we testify unto you all that the everlasting kingdom of God is established, in which this law shall be kept, till it brings in rest and everlasting righteousness to all the faithful.

SAMUEL GRAHAM,

SAMUEL P. BACON,

WARREN POST,

PHINEAS WRIGHT,

ALBERT N. HOSMER,

EBENEZER PAGE,

JEHIEL SAVAGE.

As far as I know, none of these men ever went back on their testimony.

If one were to pray about the Book of the Law of the Lord, and feel the spirit, then should that validate Strang's translation, and the Strangite faith as being the rightful continuation of Joseph's Church?

4. How would having the plates negate the need for faith? It is entirely possible for Joseph, for all his hole digging, to actually find something! If there were actually any evidence for it, I could believe it. But finding something doesn't make the Book of Mormon true. In fact, if he had found something, it might just serve as a very powerful catalyst for his imagination. Who knows what he could put together if he actually thought he was translating it? But, with all the evidence being "hidden" by God, I don't think he actually did find anything.

[Daniel Peterson]

From a footnote in a manuscript that I have not yet finished:

Forgery is the virtually certain explanation for the two sets of inscribed metal plates that James Jesse Strang said he had found in Wisconsin and Michigan (between 1845 and 1849) and translated. Strang, who claimed to have a letter of appointment from Joseph Smith, announced himself as Joseph Smith

[cinepro]

Once again, we see there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to the anti-Strangites.

Thus, Strang

[Dan Vogel]

Juliann,

I do have to point out the utter irony of your proclamation that I cannot speak for CGU while I am being trained there in those rules of engagement...yet you feel quite justified in speaking for JS whom you have never met.

I hope you know the meaning of non sequitur. A student usually does not set policy. And of course all this worry of "rules of engagement" have nothing to do with how they are funded? For all those who don't know, I recently learned that the Claremont program is funded by a rich Mormon family.

If you are going to make wild sweeping generalizations, I'm going to have to ask you to be more specific. After all, the book is over 700 pages. Considering you haven't read the book. As of 2:35 PM, as per your post in another thread, you had only skimmed the intro, at which time you said:

After looking at your book, I can see that it does have a place as a piece of the puzzle that will be looked at.

A little more than an hour later, you're speaking as if you have read the book. On another thread Dan Peterson chided someone for saying they did not have to read the BofM to know it wasn't true. Perhaps you will have the same conclusion after reading the book, but please do be specific if or when that time comes.

No one has said that you are in an adversarial relationship with CGU

Fortunately, the first institution to take on Mormon studies does not share in your assessment of Mormonism. And given the status of Claremont Graduate University, I think that they will have a great influence in this ongoing debate. (Juliann Nov 5 2004, 02:21 PM).

You were saying?

....as I said, your book was mentioned at the conference positively.

In another thread you said

Your book was mentioned three times at the conference...twice is a questionable manner and once in tandem with Quinn and Brooke as resources to study. (Juliann Nov 5 2004, 02:21 PM)

You call that positive? Since it's favorable to me, I accept that exaggeration.

However, I know of at least one not happy scholar who found out that you had no credentials.

Many assume I do ... but doesn't that tell you something?

Fair or not...that matters if you expect to engage an institution that produces those credentials.

I don't care if I ever do. I've accomplished what I set out to do. And I've saved thousands of dollars in the process. Not bad.

You still don't understand...you are confusing "approach" with "conclusion". The problem is in your selective use of sources (and from what I saw in the introduction...a very shotgun approach to supporting your psychologizing and skepticism. ) You were throwing in sources like Hume without supplying any geographical or cultural relevance to JS. Hume may matter but this is parallel-itis if you do not connect the dots.

At least here we have an actual reference to my book. However, you must have been reading too fast, because I do not imply that my quote had anything to do with Joseph Smith; hence, it had nothing to do with "parallel-itis". Rather, it had reference to explaining my naturalistic bias. Other quotes to which I think you are alluding pertain the notion of "pious fraud." Not my term, but the one used by William Paley and Thomas Paine. My brief survey is designed to show that pious fraud, although for religious people hard to comprehend, is a fact of history. This discussion is followed by quotes from Joseph Smith and his scriptures that show that Joseph Smith believed under certain circumstances deception and other violations of moral principles, primarily under comand of God, it was justified. Don't forget to read this last part, that's what will "connect the dots" for you.

Everyone must select from the sources. But If I have done unfairly, you must demonstrate that.

For instance, you say on pg x in regards to testimony that a treasure trunk settled away from them into the earth,

"Those who believe that Smith literally translated the BOM from anciently engraved gold plates or who dismiss his treasure seeking as irrelevant have difficulty with Thompson's testimony."

I could construct a myriad of other inclusive possibilities...you have settled on a rigidly exclusive either/or approach.

For those who don't know. Jonathan Thompson testified in Smith's defense at JS's 1826 court hearing, describing Smith's methods as a treasure seer and gave the explanation for the treasure not being found: it slipped further into the earth.

It's unnecessary to "construct a myriad of other inclusive possibilities," anyone with a little imagination can do that. What you need is one interpretation that fits the facts better than mine. Since you brought it up, let's hear your best interpretation.

Plurality is especially important for Mormons in a much more down home kind of way. One of Barlow's commandments was that we cannot continue to ignore the many strands of Mormonism.

Tell it to the GAs. I don't think they agree with you and Barlow. By the say, one of those "strands of Mormonism," the John Whitmer Historical Association, gave my book the best book of the year award because it was "the most balanced biography of Joseph Smith to date."

Because you are asking a complex question and expecting a simple answer. You are asking a writer to write a treatise on a web-board.

Anyone who has spent any time in a dept of religion would be astonished at this (as you can see). You should be able to summarize your methodology in a few paragraphs...which is why we are left with nothing but questions about your understanding. The first thing you are going to be asked is your methodology. It is as if you walked into a classroom and refused to give the principal a lesson plan because it is just too complicated.

To begin with, I don't have one methodology. I only spent two years in the philosophy and religious studies department before switching to American history and psychology departments. Nevertheless, I'm not doing religious studies in the manner that you are used to; I'm doing history and some literary analysis. But anyone who has read my works know my methodology because it is explained either as introductions (as in rhetorical criticism in my anti-Universalist essay in New Approaches) or as I come to various situations. So, as I told Mr. Informant, if you want to know so bad, go and read my works. I have given plenty of examples of my methodology, any history student would be astonished that you would have to ask. As to your analogy of principal and teacher, our relationship is nothing like that.

...The Truth-Seeking Principle: Each participant should be committed to the task of earnestly searching for the truth or at least the most defensible position on the issue at stake....

That assumes that there is a universal code of "truth". Isn't that the very problem here? How does demanding that there be one provide one? ... That is an admirable goal ...

The quote is from a book about how fruitful debates should be conducted. Remember, you began by bring up the idea of "rules of engagement," ther are rules of debate also. The author is not discussing "truth" as a "universal code" but, as you later state, as an "admirable goal"; hence "truth-seeking" and the concept of the "most defensible position." Note that this means that your idea of "one of a myraid possible" interpretations, and Lance Star's concept of apologetic plauzibility is not the goal of such discussions. We are looking for the "most defensible position."

Maybe I am missing something but the criticism being directed at you is that you refuse to look at any other position except that of a skeptic....again, rigid exclusivity.

Well, you forget that I was once a believer, so I think that you will have a difficult time making that stick. But with Mormonism, the options are few. The nature of Joseph Smith's religious claims are such that one either: (1) accepts Joseph Smith's supernatural claims; (2) counters with naturalistic explanations; and (3) assigns demonic influences. So, barring the demonic explanation, even Christians must restort to naturalistic eexplanations of Joseph Smith. Now, most Mormons aren't postmodernists or social constructionists, like our good Juliann, and so they must also resort to naturalistic explanations for counter revelations (e.g., Mohammad). In other words, if they don't resort to demonic assertions, they must explain competing revelations as delusion or hallucination. So, I'm only including one more religion than Mormon's do. (Perhaps more on this later.)

Thus, I find your putting forth this code somewhat schizophrenic.

What's schizophrenic is your social constructivist view of "truth" and your membership in a church that believes it is the only true church of God on earth.

That is an admirable goal but what I am seeing in your refusal to address anything beyond your own position is more in line with this:

"When reason has claimed an absolute authority, we can act with confidence that our mandate is infallible, claim knowledge of truth that is incontrovertible, and make decisions that need no review or reparations."

This does not represent reason as I know it. Reason includes a healthy fallibilism and is self-correcting. Mormonism, on the other hand, is authoritarian and infallible and "claim knowledge of truth that is incontrovertible, and make decisions that need no review or reparations."

Nice chatting with you Juliann. Now, I must move on to some of your other friends before they feel neglected.

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

QUOTE:

[Daniel Peterson]

Thus, Strang

[William the Conqueror]

Honestly, it astounds me that an LDS apologist sets forth these reasons for doubting Strang's claims, but on the other hand has no problem believing Joseph Smith's. Do you really find the reasons above to indicate the inauthenticity of Strang's experience?

It sounds to me that Joseph Smith was a lot better con artist than Strang and thus immamently more successful. In the same sense Hitler could be said to have been a lot more cunning than Mussolini. However they both met ignomious ends. Apparently so did Strang and Smith.

[Daniel Peterson]

It sounds to me that Joseph Smith was a lot better con artist than Strang and thus immamently more successful.  In the same sense Hitler could be said to have been a lot more cunning than Mussolini.  However they both met ignomious ends.  Apparently so did Strang and Smith.

That's certainly one possible understanding of the situation. And I've considered it.

I simply don't find it persuasive. Perhaps I'm lacking your strong faith.

[Mighty Curelom]

I do, however, await Richard Bushman's forthcoming biography with considerable enthusiasm.

So eminent apologist and expert on all things Mormon Daniel Peterson respects Richard Bushman's work, huh? I wonder how Mr. Peterson feels about Bushman's admission that Smith was, indeed a money-digger. Or Bushman's highly credible historical analyzis of Smith's polygamous relationships, including the fact that Smith was married to women were were already married to other men. Bushman better watch out....he's on the fast track to excommunication.

What about it Daniel Peterson? Do you agree with Mr. Bushman on these issues? You don't have to reply; I know you're busy responding to posts by Religious Freedom, even though you've declared how bored and "unenthusiastic" you are with with that particular critic.

[Daniel Peterson]

So eminent apologist and expert on all things Mormon Daniel Peterson respects Richard Bushman's work, huh? I wonder how Mr. Peterson feels about Bushman's admission that Smith was, indeed a money-digger. Or Bushman's highly credible historical analyzis of Smith's polygamous relationships, including the fact that Smith was married to women were were already married to other men. Bushman better watch out....he's on the fast track to excommunication.

What about it Daniel Peterson? Do you agree with Mr. Bushman on these issues? You don't have to reply; I know you're busy responding to posts by Religious Freedom, even though you've declared how bored and "unenthusiastic" you are with with that particular critic.

There there. You have no just reason to feel neglected, MC, so don't pout or snarl. You've received all of the attention you crave, and at least as much as you merit.

I have no problem with anything Professor Bushman has written.

Have you had early access to his forthcoming biography? How do you know what's in it?