Vogel Responds To Apologist Brian Hales

[Dan Vogel]

Will,

No bashing of "you" at all. Just valid criticisms of your attempts at writing history. Sorry, but you're just not very not good at it.

But you are a good propagandist. That's something to be proud of.

At any rate, I'm not interested in trying to improve upon Larry Morris' critique of The Making of a Prophet. At least not at present. Maybe when I'm done with BoA/KEP research ... but I doubt it. You'd probably have to write something new in order for me to be sufficiently interested in critiquing you more than has already been done by others.

So, you have nothing to say about the subject of this thread—just more generalized bashing and the assumption that Morris’s critique is correct in every respect.

[William Schryver]

Will,

So, you have nothing to say about the subject of this thread—just more generalized bashing and the assumption that Morris’s critique is correct in every respect.

Larry's critique is sufficiently consistent with my own views that I will endorse it and recommend it. Besides, this thread, from what I gather, is not about your Joseph Smith bio. Furthermore, I'm working on my own projects at present, and therefore I have neither the time nor the inclination to plow old ground with you when Larry's review is available for those interested in the subject matter.

[Dan Vogel]

As am I !

"Warranted assertibility" is exactly the question! And of course you have your right to assert what you think is warranted also.

I'm glad we are no longer worried about what "really happened".

Bukowski,

As am I !

"Warranted assertibility" is exactly the question! And of course you have your right to assert what you think is warranted also.

I'm glad we are no longer worried about what "really happened".

We should be trying to discuss what we think “really happened”—not in an objective way, of course--as opposed to simply and helplessly repeating what JS claimed. We are attempting to find who has the strongest warrant while avoiding the fallacy of relativism.

[Dan Vogel]

I just got to this quote- this thread is moving quickly and unfortunately I have other commitments for the rest of the day- but I want to give you a quick reply.

If you read the last few posts on that thread we never really got into what you call "objective constraints on experience"- I think my view differed from yours considerably.

I certainly agree that it is about "evidence and truth" - I would suggest that perhaps when you left the church you were operating under a different paradigm than I certainly do at this point in my life.

Nevertheless, I think we would agree that it does come down to what we would ACCEPT as "evidence" coming from different paradigms, and how we would INTERPRET that alleged "evidence".

In my view, religion cannot be shown to be "false" by science, and if that is true, and we both acknowledge that history is ultimately "less scientific" than say, chemistry- clearly history is in a distant third place as far as it's ability to present "evidence" which could possibly falsify religion.

Religion is not about science, nor is it really about history. It may appear to be, but it's not. What historical evidence can we show to prove that the historical person Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the Son of God, and savior of the world?

And what historical evidence would disprove it? None!

As long as religion stays in the ethereal world, I have little to say historically about it; but when it tries to prove itself through historical propositions, then that can be tested. The BOM is either real history (i.e., written by real Nephites/Jaredites), or it’s not. Presently, it’s more reasonable to reject BOM historicity than to assert it. That conclusion has implications on other claims JS made, although it can never answer the questions of whether the BOM is inspired by God or was JS a true prophet.

[Nemesis]

Discuss the subject not the person please.

Nemesis

[wenglund]

Presently, it’s more reasonable to reject BOM historicity than to assert it.

This is yet another of those dogmatic assertions that seems, from our perspective, to go beyond the evidence. It is your biased opinion, not historical evidence or fact.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Dan Vogel]

Larry's critique is sufficiently consistent with my own views that I will endorse it and recommend it. Besides, this thread, from what I gather, is not about your Joseph Smith bio. Furthermore, I'm working on my own projects at present, and therefore I have neither the time nor the inclination to plow old ground with you when Larry's review is available for those interested in the subject matter.

I read this interview, and thought it was interesting and worthy of consideration. Perhaps I’ll find time to respond to it in the near future. I think Morris major mistake was to argue that historians aren’t allowed to disagree with JS’s version of events.

[Dan Vogel]

This is yet another of those dogmatic assertions that seems, from our perspective, to go beyond the evidence. It is your biased opinion, not historical evidence or fact.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Right, as things stand, it’s more reasonable to believe the BOM is real history and the Nephites really existed. That says a lot about what I’m dealing with.

[why me]

I hate to inject a note of reality into this erudite discussion about the nature of evidence, but the reality is that there is no such thing as "objective" when it comes to history.

Everyone has an "axe to grind" and especially in an area as sensitive as this one, one can pretend this is about evidence when in fact of course it is more like intellectual war than anything else.

Each side will defend their sides to the death, and to think anything else is just naive.

When debating mormon history some do have an axe to grind. However, in historical debate, most historians do not have an axe to grind but they do have a viewpoint. Unfortunately within mormon historical debate the axe to grind is the norm. But I don't think that this is dan vogel. But he does have a viewpoint.

[why me]

Right, as things stand, it’s more reasonable to believe the BOM is real history and the Nephites really existed. That says a lot about what I’m dealing with.

For some strange reason you wording is very small on my computer. Is there a reason for this. All other posters have normal lettering. Can you upgrade your lettering to normal if I am correct and it is not the fault of my own computer.

[Calm]

For some strange reason you wording is very small on my computer. Is there a reason for this. All other posters have normal lettering. Can you upgrade your lettering to normal if I am correct and it is not the fault of my own computer.

It's small for me as well.

[Dan Vogel]

I noticed that.

How about this?

Is this better?

Thanks!

Dan

Edited September 22, 2011 by Dan Vogel

[Calm]

Much.

[Storm Rider]

Precisely Dan!

This is a common theme in apologetic rhetoric. They demand absolute "proof" for said arguments, and if you cannot provide explicit proof from "first hand" accounts, then they think they are on solid ground for dismissing it as gossip, unfounded rumor or at the very least they can chalk it up to a biased interpretation from an "anti-Mormon." Case in point, Joseph Smith didn't have sex with women because there is no DNA proof that he did. All the historical testimony from those women who claimed he did, mean nothing to them. When the Church published a talk around the turn of a century, by one of Joseph Smith's wives who said she knew he had children by other women, all this is tossed aside as her own "opinion"and "second-hand" accounting. When one marries a multiplicity of women, you don't get to just insist sex wasn't involved or at the very least intended. That's precisely what married couples do! You wouldn't assume that childless couples today don't have sex, would you? Of course not. But if it helps you maintain faith in a religion, well then you just might.

You see this silly tactic from all the rank and file apologists. Dan Peterson once said something to the effect that the burden of proof is on the critics for virtually everything they say, implying how easy the apologist's job really was. Meaning, all the apologist has to do is demand absolute proof, and when it isn't provided, the apologist wins because the LDS truth claim remains "plausible." They don't seem to understand the beauty of inductive logic or how plausibility is rationally ascertained. They seem to think plausibility is the default position for LDS claims, unless the critics can disprove it with absolute proof.

Last month I ran into this problem in a number of threads while posting on this forum. It isn't just the amateurs who think this way either. You'll see some of their scholars who have presumably been trained as historians. Amazing.

Anyway, good stuff Dan. Keep it coming. We need to hear more from you.

Xander, taking a position and then seeking to prove that position is not within the province of a true historian. Brodie was notorious for doing this and that is one of the big reasons that I am more careful with her work than for others. Should we use the say-so of other individuals that may know the real story? For a historian this evidence must be brought forward as potential evidence. However, it does not mean that this potential evidence is accurate; all it means is that it was stated by an individual who may know. Of course, we should review who the person is, the quality of their personal relationship with Smith, and if they were a proponent or an antagonist. This serves to assist others to more easily judge the quality of the statement. A historian reports their evidence and may make deductions, but that should be clearly defined for the reader. I personally reject and dislike those so-called historians who think they are capable of stating what was in an individual's mind. To me this dishonors all historians and the profession.

Additionally, you know as well as anyone that during the beginning of plural marriage in the Church the concept of the sealing power was being undestood. How many men were sealed to Joseph? Have you reported on this in your research? Have you attempted to explain what the purpose meant to the early members of the Church or how it was taught. Was there any correlation between Smith's sealings to women and the sealings of men to him?

This is my problem with most historians; they have lost objectivity and become advocates for extremes opinions about this man. Are you going to be a Howe or are you going to be a Church representative? How about being neither? How about reporting all the facts instead of that which meets your hypothesis?

As is evident, I am not a historian; I am just a simple man that has been a student of history his whole life. I search for historical facts and then I will make my own decisions. Why can't you trust the public to do the same?

[Cobalt-70]

As long as religion stays in the ethereal world, I have little to say historically about it; but when it tries to prove itself through historical propositions, then that can be tested. The BOM is either real history (i.e., written by real Nephites/Jaredites), or it’s not. Presently, it’s more reasonable to reject BOM historicity than to assert it. That conclusion has implications on other claims JS made, although it can never answer the questions of whether the BOM is inspired by God or was JS a true prophet.

I don't think the question of whether the Book of Mormon is real history is an interesting academic question anymore. The historical mainstream says the book has no historical connection to any person living before the 1820s, but most apologetic writers will probably never buy into that, which means that they will always be marginalized. So unless a historian is trying to evangelize Mormons, what's the point of directly rehashing the BOM historicity issue? For academic Book of Mormon research, the more historically-pertinent issues are things like tracing the origin of BOM ideas to contemporary thought, or to Smith's personal experience, or explaining the origin of early Mormon myth. You have made a good start along those lines in your bibliography.

[altersteve]

I noticed that.

How about this?

Is this better?

Thanks!

Dan

Well you don't need to yell.

[wenglund]

Right, as things stand, it’s more reasonable to believe the BOM is real history and the Nephites really existed. That says a lot about what I’m dealing with.

Please don't put those words into my mouth. My comments don't interpret correctly when passed through your black/white dogmatic filter--which may explain why on this thread you have repeatedly misconstrued things into what I have said. Let me speak for myself, and I will let you speak for yourself. Deal?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

I wouldn't have chosen this discipline if I didn't think the perception was basically accurate.

Think about that from my perspective where the perception IS all we can know that "is accurate". All there is is the perception as you and/or society have/has created it.

[Chris Smith]

Think about that from my perspective where the perception IS all we can know that "is accurate". All there is is the perception as you and/or society have/has created it.

Think about it from my perspective, where if you and I jump out of an airplane without parachutes, we will both die no matter how hard we try to mentally "construct" our way out of it.

(I actually agree with the constructivist critique of categories and language, and often use it myself to critique categories such as "gender" or "marriage" that people seem to be giving metaphysical status. I even agree that sensory perception itself is "constructed" to some extent. But construction also clearly has its limits. It is constrained by something that we experience as being beyond our control, which we might as well call the "real world" and think about in realistic terms for lack of a better way of making sense of it.)

Edited September 22, 2011 by Chris Smith

[wenglund]

Think about it from my perspective, where if you and I jump out of an airplane without parachutes, we will both die no matter how hard we try to mentally "construct" our way out of it.

I raised a similar issue during a discussion on hermeneutic in my graduate philosophy class. However, I used the example of placing a blind mind within a forest and thoroughly convincing him that he is in the middle of an open field and can run about carefree. Were he to do so, the reality of the trees would at some point manifest themselves to him in contravention to what was constructed in his mind.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Unlike William James, I think religion's propositional content is an essential aspect of it. As the propositions that constitute a religious system are falsified, the religion itself is falsified-- robbed of its pragmatic power. This is what happened to my religious system over the course of many years of study.

Thanks for getting me to think about this- I think it points to larger issues which might have some relevance.

I think you might have put the cart before the horse.

I think we all start with a naive view of truth, the "man in the street" vague correspondence theory, and a belief in blind authority- that our leaders are always right and everything has a clear answer and "true" and "false" are as sure as black and white.

Kevin Christensen often posts about the "Perry Stages of Cognitive Development" in which stage 2 is as follows:

POSITION 2 - Multiplicity Prelegitimate. (Resisting snake)

Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are TRUE authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds. They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong. They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently.

I don't think that this applies to you, but I see a LOT of this stage of thought on this thread.

Perry's last stage is :

POSITION 9. Commitments in Relativism further developed.

The person now has a developed sense of irony and can more easily embrace other's viewpoints. He can accept life as just that "life", just the way IT is! Now he holds the commitments he makes in a condition of "PROVISIONAL ULTIMACY", meaning that for him what he chooses to be truth IS his truth, and he acts as if it is ultimate truth, but there is still a "provision" for change. He has no illusions about having "arrived" permanently on top of some heap, he is ready and knows he will have to retrace his journey over and over, but he has hope that he will do it each time more wisely. He is aware that he is developing his IDENTITY through Commitment. He can affirm the inseparable nature of the knower and the known--meaning he knows he as knower contributes to what he calls known. He helps weld a community by sharing realization of aloneness and gains strength and intimacy through this shared vulnerability. He has discarded obedience in favor of his own agency, and he continues to select, judge, and build.

Note that such a person "acts as if" the truth he has cobbled together for himself "is ultimate truth, but there is still provision for change".

I will now make an ethical judgement: I believe that this should be everyone's goal to reach that level of intellectual development.

I don't think that that stage includes the notion that religious propositions are in any way "falsifiable" by what some think is historical "evidence" which is filtered through many layers of interpretation of what a few people count as "data". I think that is just an untenable position.

I think if one was raised in the church or started their belief system on an unthinking belief that historical "facts" could indeed somehow "prove" religious belief, and later was disillusioned in that belief, then held onto that intellectual point of view, that would be understandable.

But from my point of view, as a former atheist, the first issue in developing a religious belief is whether or not God "exists" and in what sense; that to me is an intellectually prior question and after one decides that one, one can begin to decide if religious belief can be "true" in any sense at all.

If God exists, can he communicate with people? That would be the next question- because if he can't, he becomes irrelevant in one's life.

If he can communicate, how would he do so? Through ancient legends written by unknown people thousands of years ago?

Or can he communicate with ME on a personal basis? I think that question must be "yes" if indeed he does exist and he wants us to do specific things like get baptized, or believe certain "truths" above other truths. I cannot know that some ancient book is superior to another ancient book spiritually regardless of its historical context unless God can in fact "tell me" that I should regard one as superior to another.

How those books came to be becomes irrelevant on this view- the question is what set of beliefs are consistent with, again quoting the above,:

developing his IDENTITY through Commitment. He can affirm the inseparable nature of the knower and the known--meaning he knows he as knower contributes to what he calls known. He helps weld a community by sharing realization of aloneness and gains strength and intimacy through this shared vulnerability. He has discarded obedience in favor of his own agency, and he continues to select, judge, and build

[mfbukowski]

Think about it from my perspective, where if you and I jump out of an airplane without parachutes, we will both die no matter how hard we try to mentally "construct" our way out of it.

(I actually agree with the constructivist critique of categories and language, and often use it myself to critique categories such as "gender" or "marriage" that people seem to be giving metaphysical status. I even agree that sensory perception itself is "constructed" to some extent. But construction also clearly has its limits. It is constrained by something that we experience as being beyond our control, which we might as well call the "real world" and think about in realistic terms for lack of a better way of making sense of it.)

This is the point we never got to on the other thread.

The reality is of course that unless we were hallucinating, or psychotic, we would not jump out of our constructed "reality" of the airplane which our brain's perception put together by the light waves hitting our retinas, the sounds and feel of the wind etc.

No one is saying we are "brains in a vat"- that is not the argument at all. This is not the movie "Avatar" I am talking about here.

There are no "constraints on experience"- you cannot put your hand through the wall because you EXPERIENCE THE WALL AS SOMETHING YOU CAN'T PUT YOUR HAND THROUGH.

Sorry for yelling, but nobody was listening to that point.

[mfbukowski]

I raised a similar issue during a discussion on hermeneutic in my graduate philosophy class. However, I used the example of placing a blind mind within a forest and thoroughly convincing him that he is in the middle of an open field and can run about carefree. Were he to do so, the reality of the trees would at some point manifest themselves to him in contravention to what was constructed in his mind.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

And of course what was constructed in his mind would be "false" because it had no survival value.

Neither would jumping out of a plane without a parachute. That of course has nothing to do with whether or not it is "constructed in your mind" of course.

Eliminating someone's visual cortex makes it a little hard to "see" what his brain constructs and the danger involved in jumping out of airplanes. That's why we have evolved a visual cortex.

[mfbukowski]

Bukowski,

We should be trying to discuss what we think “really happened”—not in an objective way, of course--as opposed to simply and helplessly repeating what JS claimed. We are attempting to find who has the strongest warrant while avoiding the fallacy of relativism.

I am not sure what "fallacy" there is in relativism- of course that "fallacy" is one which historians use to accuse others of something I think has not really been examined philosophically.

If that is the "fallacy" you are referring to, then of course you are aware that it is not at all clear that it is indeed a "fallacy" at all.

Perhaps you could explain the fallacy to me.

[Cobalt-70]

Think about it from my perspective, where if you and I jump out of an airplane without parachutes, we will both die no matter how hard we try to mentally "construct" our way out of it.

(I actually agree with the constructivist critique of categories and language, and often use it myself to critique categories such as "gender" or "marriage" that people seem to be giving metaphysical status. I even agree that sensory perception itself is "constructed" to some extent. But construction also clearly has its limits. It is constrained by something that we experience as being beyond our control, which we might as well call the "real world" and think about in realistic terms for lack of a better way of making sense of it.)

I like to say that there is a truth out there, but language gets in the way. In other words, whenever we think we have arrived at the truth, we realize that the truth has been constructed under a scaffolding of our experience, culture, and biases. It is impossible to fully remove that scaffolding to reveal the pristine and unmolested truth, or if we do remove it, there is an inner scaffolding underneath the outer one. We can tell that there is a building underneath, but it is always obscured by the scaffolding.