Vogel Responds To Starr

[why me]

An ad hominem is when you draw attention away from the evidence or argument by attacking the person. It’s a fallacy of distraction and has several forms, abusive being but one.

I see. Does this mean that when your critic friends call Joseph Smith a sex crazed pervert that they are using an ad hominem? Or when they call brigham a racist, they are using a ad hominem? Or when they attack Dan Petersen in a personal way, they are using an ad hominem? Or if someone calls Joseph Smith a pious fraud, they are using an ad hominem? These are all attack names to cause distraction, right? Do critics use ad hominems to attack the lds church on the Internet in cunning ways to distract members from their faith?

Just curious what you think.

Edited July 5, 2012 by why me

[Calm]

My argument was that his training didn’t save him from criticism.

That does not automatically make criticizing lack of training irrelevant.

[Nevo]

are you a trained family therapist? do you have a MA in Family therapy or a PH.D. in the subject? Why should I take your analysis seriously?

Richard Bushman isn't a trained family therapist, but that didn't stop him from offering his own analysis of Smith family dynamics:

"Lucy, a high-strung, proud woman, intensely devoted to her family's standing in the world, did not select her fourth son as the chosen vessel of family accomplishment; the oldest, Alvin, was favored at first. Only after Alvin's death when Joseph was seventeen did responsibility for family leadership fall on Joseph, under the tacit agreement that Joseph Sr. was not fully adequate. He was a gentle, disappointed man with an inclination to compensate for his failures with magic and drink. He loved his sons as Asael had loved him and was grateful for their support despite his weakness. Joseph Jr. eventually restored his father's dignity by giving him an honored place in the church. If there was any dynamic at work in Joseph Jr.'s life, it was the desire to redeem his flawed, loving father."

"Joseph Jr. had mourned his family's humiliations and assumed responsibility for lifting them from their low state. ... He had made his father's pain his own.... Joseph Sr. had given his son nothing for a worldly inheritance, and Joseph Jr. had met this lack by giving his father the power to bless his sons. In the seating in the Kirtland temple, Joseph Sr. sat in the highest pulpit above his son." (Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, 55, 263)

Bushman comments on the psychological themes in Rough Stone Rolling in his WGBH lecture on the "Inner Joseph Smith," part of which can be viewed here. He states: "I didn't set out to do a deep psychological portrait of the Prophet... but after completing the biography...I realized that [Erik] Erikson's influence could be seen in its pages. Without really taking conscious thought, I had introduced psychological themes into my account and given them an Eriksonian turn." He goes on to highlight two of them in the remainder of his presentation.

[Duncan]

Richard Bushman isn't a trained family therapist, but that didn't stop him from offering his own analysis of Smith family dynamics:

Bushman comments on the psychological themes in Rough Stone Rolling in his WGBH lecture on the "Inner Joseph Smith," part of which can be viewed here. He states: "I didn't set out to do a deep psychological portrait of the Prophet... but after completing the biography...I realized that [Erik] Erikson's influence could be seen in its pages. Without really taking conscious thought, I had introduced psychological themes into my account and given them an Eriksonian turn." He goes on to highlight two of them in the remainder of his presentation.

that's true but as much as I love Bushman I am under no obligation to take his opinion seriously or without question

[Nevo]

that's true but as much as I love Bushman I am under no obligation to take his opinion seriously or without question

Of course you have no "obligation" to read Bushman's work or agree with anything he says. You're not obliged to learn anything from anyone. But when a respected award-winning historian spends decades intensively researching a subject, I think it behooves most mortals to give them a serious hearing even if one ultimately ends up disagreeing with them. In my view, both Bushman's and Vogel's biographies are worthy of serious consideration.

[wenglund]

But that seems to assume a very limited audience. Do you not anticipate for at least some of those who read your book to be nonscholars, unfamiliar with the ways of scholarship and to just accept your claims based possibly on a believed expertise in the field rather than searching out authoritative information with which to compare your work to? If Mr. Starr is addressing this audience---the one that treats you as if you are an expert witness at a trial--it seems to me his point has value.

This is an important point.

However, let me take it in a slightly different direction. Since most of the readers are likely not trained in psychology, and may not be all that experienced with Family System Theory, and thus are not equipped to make an informed judgments whether certain alleged psychological arguments are correct or viable or not, or the degree to which those argument are reliable and widely accepted among psychologists. In other words, they may not be able to rightly determine, themselves, whether the arguments can be trusted or not.

This becomes even more of a problem when there are competing and opposing arguments.

These problems are not restricted to the field of psychology or to Vogel's publications, but may occur across a broad spectrum of fields, particularly those fields that are quite complex and in-depth and in-exact (like history, religion, psychology, sociology, etc.).

To surmount these problems, reason allows for the limited use of experience, credentials, and expertise. In other words, reason suggest, as a general rule, that people with experience, credentials, and expertise in a given field may be trusted and relied on more than those lacking the same. For the sake of the in-experienced and uninformed reader, then, it is legitimate to raise the issue of experience, credentials, and expertise in this limited sense.

What this means is that, in the case of arguments presented by people lacking experience, credentials, and expertise, it is appropriate for the reader to reserve judgment until someone with credentials and so forth weigh in. It is also appropriate for those critiquing the arguments to raise the issue of lack of credentials and advise reserving judgment and/or weigh-in as experts and critique the arguments as experts.

What wouldn't be appropriate is to dismiss the arguments out of hand on the basis alone of lack of experience and so forth, or to commit the fallacy of Argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam).

Fair enough?

With this in mind, let's look at what Starr had to say about Vogel....

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 5, 2012 by wenglund

[mfbukowski]

An ad hominem is when you draw attention away from the evidence or argument by attacking the person. It’s a fallacy of distraction and has several forms, abusive being but one. You might not know what it is, but logicians and philosophers have categorized this fallacy for more than a thousand years. I know what it is; Starr knows what it is; millions of people know what it is, but Bukowski doesn’t. Odd, that is!

LOL

Do you even KNOW what I meant by "meta-ethical"????

What I was questioning was the entire premise you are giving voice to! You didn't even understand the post!

Edited July 5, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Duncan]

Of course you have no "obligation" to read Bushman's work or agree with anything he says. You're not obliged to learn anything from anyone. But when a respected award-winning historian spends decades intensively researching a subject, I think it behooves most mortals to give them a serious hearing even if one ultimately ends up disagreeing with them. In my view, both Bushman's and Vogel's biographies are worthy of serious consideration.

I get that and appreciate your response but I would take someone's psychological opinion more seriously on Joseph Smith who had the psychology background and had met him and interviewed him-I love Richard Bushman and have read a lot of his writings but again when it comes to any kind of psychological analysis I would prefer someone else-granted no one that I know of gave any kind of analysis on Joseph Smith in his own lifetime as the psycho-analytical field wasn't much if anything back then

[Nevo]

I get that and appreciate your response but I would take someone's psychological opinion more seriously on Joseph Smith who had the psychology background and had met him and interviewed him-I love Richard Bushman and have read a lot of his writings but again when it comes to any kind of psychological analysis I would prefer someone else-granted no one that I know of gave any kind of analysis on Joseph Smith in his own lifetime as the psycho-analytical field wasn't much if anything back then

I guess you'll have to make do with Joseph's phrenology charts then You can find one here. Another can be found in the History of the Church, 5:53–55.

[William Schryver]

Of course you have no "obligation" to read Bushman's work or agree with anything he says. You're not obliged to learn anything from anyone. But when a respected award-winning historian spends decades intensively researching a subject, I think it behooves most mortals to give them a serious hearing even if one ultimately ends up disagreeing with them. In my view, both Bushman's and Vogel's biographies are worthy of serious consideration.

I've read both Bushman's and Vogel's biographies. Both books (and their authors) have received public acclaim to the point where they, by their very prominence in the field, are "worthy of serious consideration," which is what I accorded them.

My succinct reviews of the two books:

Vogel's is a litany of bald, calculated speculation--flawed well beyond the point where its virtues might ever hope to redeem it.

I only ever recommend Bushman's with a number of sober caveats for the instances where he has opted, almost incomprehensibly, to effectively endorse seriously flawed sources, or otherwise has drawn insupportable conclusions from insufficient evidence.

Edited July 6, 2012 by William Schryver

[noel00]

Bushman admits the year the Smiths joined the Pres church was during the 1823-24 revival. Walters established that fact. he also argues the revival or that year also. Walters and Vogel have done the legwork (located sources). I have copies of some letters where Walters addressed the issue of the neighbourhood where I lived" He nails Mormon scholars like Backman down.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

that's true but as much as I love Bushman I am under no obligation to take his opinion seriously or without question

That goes for all men so far as I can tell. Premises presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It's only rational after all.

[Duncan]

That goes for all men so far as I can tell. Premises presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It's only rational after all.

that's good to hear because the first of these two quotations have only one source, Anderson, of I haven't ever met Joseph Smith yet I know the inner mental workings of him and his family fame

"Lucy, a high-strung, proud woman, intensely devoted to her family's standing in the world, did not select her fourth son as the chosen vessel of family accomplishment; the oldest, Alvin, was favored at first. Only after Alvin's death when Joseph was seventeen did responsibility for family leadership fall on Joseph, under the tacit agreement that Joseph Sr. was not fully adequate. He was a gentle, disappointed man with an inclination to compensate for his failures with magic and drink. He loved his sons as Asael had loved him and was grateful for their support despite his weakness. Joseph Jr. eventually restored his father's dignity by giving him an honored place in the church. If there was any dynamic at work in Joseph Jr.'s life, it was the desire to redeem his flawed, loving father."

"Joseph Jr. had mourned his family's humiliations and assumed responsibility for lifting them from their low state. ... He had made his father's pain his own.... Joseph Sr. had given his son nothing for a worldly inheritance, and Joseph Jr. had met this lack by giving his father the power to bless his sons. In the seating in the Kirtland temple, Joseph Sr. sat in the highest pulpit above his son." (Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, 55, 263)

the second quotation from page 263 has nothing as a source....

[Nevo]

that's good to hear because the first of these two quotations have only one source, Anderson, of I haven't ever met Joseph Smith yet I know the inner mental workings of him and his family fame

"Lucy, a high-strung, proud woman, intensely devoted to her family's standing in the world, did not select her fourth son as the chosen vessel of family accomplishment; the oldest, Alvin, was favored at first. Only after Alvin's death when Joseph was seventeen did responsibility for family leadership fall on Joseph, under the tacit agreement that Joseph Sr. was not fully adequate. He was a gentle, disappointed man with an inclination to compensate for his failures with magic and drink. He loved his sons as Asael had loved him and was grateful for their support despite his weakness. Joseph Jr. eventually restored his father's dignity by giving him an honored place in the church. If there was any dynamic at work in Joseph Jr.'s life, it was the desire to redeem his flawed, loving father."

"Joseph Jr. had mourned his family's humiliations and assumed responsibility for lifting them from their low state. ... He had made his father's pain his own.... Joseph Sr. had given his son nothing for a worldly inheritance, and Joseph Jr. had met this lack by giving his father the power to bless his sons. In the seating in the Kirtland temple, Joseph Sr. sat in the highest pulpit above his son." (Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, 55, 263)

the second quotation from page 263 has nothing as a source....

I'm not sure why you say "Anderson" is the source of the first quote. The source is Bushman. He cross-references Quinn's Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, 2d ed., 159, for his comments regarding Alvin. (Robert D. Anderson is only mentioned as one who has "diagnosed [the Smiths] as a dysfunctional family that produced a psychologically crippled son"—a position that Bushman rejects.)

The source for the second quote is also Bushman. I don't know why you think Bushman needs to quote some other authority than himself to make an observation about the Smith family. Bushman is a seasoned historian of early American history and culture who has extensively studied Revolutionary-era American farmers, was an Interdisciplinary Fellow in History and Psychology at Brown University from 1963 to 1965, and knows the sources inside out. There isn't anyone better qualified to comment on the Smith family. Good grief.

[Duncan]

I'm not sure why you say "Anderson" is the source of the first quote. The source is Bushman. He cross-references Quinn's Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, 2d ed., 159, for his comments regarding Alvin. (Robert D. Anderson is only mentioned as one who has "diagnosed [the Smiths] as a dysfunctional family that produced a psychologically crippled son"—a position that Bushman rejects.)

The source for the second quote is also Bushman. I don't know why you think Bushman needs to quote some other authority than himself to make an observation about the Smith family. Bushman is a seasoned historian of early American history and culture who has extensively studied Revolutionary-era American farmers, was an Interdisciplinary Fellow in History and Psychology at Brown University from 1963 to 1965, and knows the sources inside out. There isn't anyone better qualified to comment on the Smith family. Good grief.

because I like you I will agree to disagree on some of these points

[Nevo]

because I like you I will agree to disagree on some of these points

Thanks Duncan. I like you too. Well, at least we still have Chaplin

(Bushman is a personal hero of mine, so I am perhaps unduly defensive of him.)

[Duncan]

Thanks Duncan. I like you too. Well, at least we still have Chaplin

(Bushman is a personal hero of mine, so I am perhaps unduly defensive of him.)

Chaplin is the Head God in the Holy trinity of Comedians, there is none to compare

[William Schryver]

Thanks Duncan. I like you too. Well, at least we still have Chaplin

(Bushman is a personal hero of mine, so I am perhaps unduly defensive of him.)

Nevo, you are also one of my favorite posters here at MDDB, and always have been. That said, I disagree profoundly with your assessment of Bushman and particularly his magnum opus, Rough Stone Rolling. (I think his earlier work, Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism is much better.)

Of course, I am not alone, as you probably know. Although I will not "name names," I could rattle off at least a half dozen very prominent LDS scholars/apologists who concur with my assessment of Bushman and his book. This is not meant as an appeal to authority (otherwise I would have named names), but rather merely to underscore the fact that there is a profound disagreement about these things among those whose knowledge of Mormon history is such that it renders them well-qualified to judge.

At any rate, there is a very good reason that Bushman is so popular among critics of Mormonism: he concurs more with them than he does with defenders of Mormonism. Does this necessarily imply that Bushman is wrong in his interpretations of the historical data? Well, yes, it does, as a matter of fact.

But seriously, there has been a pronounced reluctance among LDS apologists to strongly criticize Bushman and Rough Stone Rolling on account of a certain sense of "loyalty to the team." In my opinion, this has been very ill-advised and short-sighted. I hope that the recent shake-up at the NAMI will serve as a wake-up call to those who have been "biting their tongues" in the years since Rough Stone Rolling was published, and that it will finally receive the muscular critique it deserves.

Edited July 6, 2012 by William Schryver

[wenglund]

The only review by someone with training was done by Kyle Walker, who didn’t complain about my knowledge of family systems but criticized my interpretation of the sources, although he doesn’t have a degree in history. For example, he disagreed with my assessment that Joseph Smith was an alcoholic, or at least had a problem with drinking, because he was unsure if there was enough data to make that determination and hesitant to accept the accounts of the Smiths’ neighbors. Walker’s apologetic analysis leaves out a lot of information, which leads him to make erroneous conclusions about Smith family dynamics. If he’s wrong about the history, he’s also wrong about his analysis. At any rate, Walker faulted my historical interpretation, not my use of family systems.

Here is an excerpt from Walker's Review. I will let the reader decided whether Vogel's claim about Walker's review is accurate or not, and whether or not Walker's review may lend some credence to what Starr suggested about the relevance of noting Vogel's lack of training and experience in psychology:

Vogel adheres to a modality that requires a significant amount of elaboration and assumptions. Although psychoanalysis is grounded in scientific and academic history, it is only loosely based on the body of knowledge about social and psychological phenomena, and when utilized in evaluating limited historical information it requires extensive speculation. Vogel's applied psychoanalysis is rooted more in a system of beliefs and constructs than it is in a body of scientific knowledge. In turn, he speculates extensively that Joseph Smith's childhood led to impairment in his adult personality. This may be at least part of the reason why Vogel limits his biography of Smith to the years 1805–1831, because psychoanalysts believe that most adult dysfunction stems from childhood.

In addition to psychoanalysis, Vogel proposes using family systems theory to further substantiate previous claims that Joseph Smith's upbringing was largely negative. He states in the introduction that he sees Joseph Sr. and Lucy Smith's marriage as "essentially dysfunctional" due to religious differences and financial burdens. However, he fails to document patterns of conflict that would lead to such an overarching conclusion. Besides documenting a single disagreement surrounding the Smith parents' religious differences, Vogel fails to cite ongoing turmoil to substantiate his claim. Instead, he hypothesizes that an episode such as Joseph Jr.'s refusal to drink alcohol during his leg surgery was evidence of chronic marital conflict over Joseph Sr.'s supposed misuse of the substance (28). Similarly, he conjectures that when the Smiths lost their Palmyra-Manchester farm, "The loss added stress to an already strained marriage. One can only speculate about the fallout that must have followed this event, and it is doubtful that Joseph Sr. would have escaped blame" (78). While Joseph Sr.'s decisions regarding the family finances certainly made life more difficult for the family, Vogel's interpretation of the limited information may lead to inaccurate conclusions....

One major limitation of the book is that Vogel fails to substantiate claims of family dysfunctionality, and fails to carry the claim through to the end of the book. This is a critical error, because Vogel argues that the "'singular environmental pressure' motivating Smith's behavior came primarily from his family" and that "he began his religious career, in part, to resolve family conflict" (xxi). If the family was indeed functional, then Vogel's arguments lack validity. He assumes the reader is familiar with earlier works by Anderson and Morain to support his conclusions that the Smiths were a dysfunctional family and Joseph struggled with either bipolar disorder or a narcissistic personality. In an earlier review of Anderson's book, the reader is made aware of the impropriety of diagnosing the dead—especially with a limited amount of historical information that would justify such far-reaching diagnoses.¹ The same could be said of Vogel's case for family dysfunction, where he fails to provide sufficient documentation to justify his conclusions and carry it through to its conclusion, as the book veers in other directions....

Such speculation is prevalent throughout this portion of the book. If Vogel fails to substantiate family dysfunction—such as his supposition that Father Smith was an alcoholic or that Alvin was indeed Joseph's surrogate father—then Vogel's interpretation regarding various individuals and stories within the Book of Mormon requires even greater hypotheticals.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Nevo]

Nevo, you are also one of my favorite posters here at MDDB, and always have been. That said, I disagree profoundly with your assessment of Bushman and particularly his magnum opus, Rough Stone Rolling.

Thanks for the kind words, Will. The regard is mutual.

I am not surprised that you and others disagree with many of Bushman's interpretations in Rough Stone Rolling. Bushman set out to write for both skeptics and believers, recognizing full well that neither audience would be completely satisfied with the book:

When Fawn Brodie wrote her brilliant study fifty years ago, she was fleeing Mormonism and had no sympathy for the Mormon reader. She showed no pity as she mowed down the faithful with her account of Joseph Smith. More important, she felt no need to address the objections that Mormon scholars might raise. She was on her way out of the faith and wanted to address the larger world. She played to its prejudices while disregarding believing scholarship. Some believing writers do the opposite. They play to Mormon prejudices while rejecting the larger world. I do not want to disregard either audience in my Latter-day Saint writings.

— "Reflections on Believing History," in Believing History: Latter-day Saint Essays, ed. Reid L. Neilson and Jed Woodworth (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004), 282.

For my part, I would welcome "a muscular critique" of Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling. Is Greg Smith available?

[William Schryver]

Thanks for the kind words, Will. The regard is mutual.

I am not surprised that you and others disagree with many of Bushman's interpretations in Rough Stone Rolling. Bushman set out to write for both skeptics and believers, recognizing full well that neither audience would be completely satisfied with the book:

I'm quite familiar with this particular quote.

Also, I should make perfectly clear that I regard most, even the majority, of Bushman's interpretations as valid and even insightful at times. I only have a problem with a few of them, and they tend to concern his forays into Brodieesque/Vogelesque historiography.

I don't believe Bushman understands Joseph Smith very well in many significant respects.

Worse yet, I believe Bushman fails abysmally in many significant respects to understand Joseph Smith's enemies; their motivations; their methods; and especially the ways their propaganda has filtered down through the almost two centuries since the First Vision, and continues to manipulate public (and historical) perspectives of Joseph Smith to the present day. In that respect, it's not so much the specific instances where Bushman cedes to critics a particular point, but that he cedes points that need not and should not be surrendered for the simple reason that the "evidence" is part of the corpus of "enemy propaganda" that has been used to produce a caricature of Joseph Smith since the beginning of his prophetic ministry.

Bushman also attests a subtle aversion and prejudice against plural marriage, and is therefore far too receptive to controversial contemporary historical narratives that are hostile to Joseph Smith specifically on account of their authors' opposition to the implementation of plural marriage as a feature of the restoration.

For my part, I would welcome "a muscular critique" of Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling. Is Greg Smith available?

Well, he's recently been called as a bishop, so I imagine his time will be somewhat limited for the next five years or so.

Edited July 6, 2012 by William Schryver

[ttribe]

Nevo, you are also one of my favorite posters here at MDDB, and always have been. That said, I disagree profoundly with your assessment of Bushman and particularly his magnum opus, Rough Stone Rolling. (I think his earlier work, Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism is much better.)

Of course, I am not alone, as you probably know. Although I will not "name names," I could rattle off at least a half dozen very prominent LDS scholars/apologists who concur with my assessment of Bushman and his book. This is not meant as an appeal to authority (otherwise I would have named names), but rather merely to underscore the fact that there is a profound disagreement about these things among those whose knowledge of Mormon history is such that it renders them well-qualified to judge.

At any rate, there is a very good reason that Bushman is so popular among critics of Mormonism: he concurs more with them than he does with defenders of Mormonism. Does this necessarily imply that Bushman is wrong in his interpretations of the historical data? Well, yes, it does, as a matter of fact.

But seriously, there has been a pronounced reluctance among LDS apologists to strongly criticize Bushman and Rough Stone Rolling on account of a certain sense of "loyalty to the team." In my opinion, this has been very ill-advised and short-sighted. I hope that the recent shake-up at the NAMI will serve as a wake-up call to those who have been "biting their tongues" in the years since Rough Stone Rolling was published, and that it will finally receive the muscular critique it deserves.

What is, allegedly, wrong with RSR? I don't claim scholarly expertise in these things, but having read it, my principal criticism was that Bushman seemed to dance around the polyandry practices a little too much instead of being a bit more straightforward on the matter. Other than that, I can't recall any distortions or tone problems.

[William Schryver]

What is, allegedly, wrong with RSR? I don't claim scholarly expertise in these things, but having read it, my principal criticism was that Bushman seemed to dance around the polyandry practices a little too much instead of being a bit more straightforward on the matter. Other than that, I can't recall any distortions or tone problems.

I don't believe anyone has ever accused Bushman of having "tone problems."

I give some of my specific objections to Bushman in my previous post.

[ttribe]

I don't believe anyone has ever accused Bushman of having "tone problems."

I give some of my specific objections to Bushman in my previous post.

Pretty vague, IMO. But, your appeal to the "enemies" issue doesn't come as a surprise.

Edited July 6, 2012 by ttribe

[William Schryver]

Pretty vague, IMO. But, your appeal to the "enemies" issue doesn't come as a surprise.

Bushman is not hardly the only 21st century Latter-day Saint who struggles with enemy identification. It's a modish malaise.