Pious Fraud

[wenglund]

How is it, mr. Englund, that a "paradigm" gets "encapsulated" in nature?

Briefly, I view paradigms as encapsolated in three ways:

1. Paradigms are systems of thought. The systems are comprised, among other things, of foundational theories, accepted principles and practices, methodologies, rules of evidence and analysis, and so forth, which inform and guide the thought process. The systems establish the parameters for what may or may not be believed or accepted as "knowledge." The parameters are, by definition, encapsolating--isolating the believed from the disbelieved or unbelieved, the correct from the incorrect, the logically valid from the invalid, truth from error, right from wrong.

2. The rational or reasoned portion of paradigms consist of a web of interconnected and interdependant arguments which ultimately and unavoidable wrap back onto each other, and are thus circular and encapsulated.

3. Paradigms, while often dynamic and evolving, are finite in terms of what is known or knowable (according to the paradigm) at any given point in time. The horizon of understanding, individually and collectively of those who share the paradigm, is limited by how high has been climbed the epistemic mountain. The paradigm is encapsolated within the horizon of its understanding.

These forms of encapsulation should, I would think, be most obvious when there is a clash of paradigms, where ardent resistance to grasping and accepting other points of view become the rule of the day, and/or where communication invariably and consistently breaks down--such as may be the case here.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Beowulf]

OK.

I think that D&C19 and 76 are both clarifications of the mercy vs. justice in Alma 42, but not contradictions of it.

This is certainly the case if you assume that God is really revealing this information to JS, as I do. But even if you start from the naturalist position, that JS wrote it all down himself, I do not see how any of it is a contradiction, or backtracking, or, most important to Dan's thesis, that they are evidence showing through of Joseph's "pious fraud".

In other words, I think that Dan is wrong, regardless of the assumptions made. However, I thank Dan for bringing it up because it has given me much to think about in regards to DC19.

The "pious fraud" idea reminds me of Tertullian, who reported that a man had forged the Acts of Paul out of "pious reverence" for the apostle. Tertullian was annoyed that people were still reading it as real (and still do today!) even though the man had confessed!

So "pious fraud" is certainly a real phenomenon. And can be remarkably brazen. (I just came across a website purporting to have a revelation condemning the current leadership of the Community of Christ. The revelation looks real enough, but the poor soul got summarily drummed out of that church for his pains. I think it is a good example of "pious fraud" in the mode that Dan Vogel would like to pin on Joseph Smith.)

Beowulf

[Calm]

Juliann seems to think I insulted you...

No problem.

It seems you have accepted at least the possibility that God

[Calm]

From modern revelation we learn that the expression "endless wo" does not mean that the intended punishment is of endless duration, but rather that it is God's punishment, and God is endless; therefore he has chosen to call that punishment that comes from him by this name, or endless.

[Calm]

A few more. BTW, I'm withdrawn Ballard's name as a supporter (I think I mentioned him) after reading the entire talk this time. I think it's too weak of evidence to be considered. Too many assumptions of how he was putting things together are required.

The Ludlow quote:

The Lord permitted the prophets of old to speak of endless punishment, and the fire that is not quenched -- even Christ did this himself -- that the sinners might be impressed and brought to repentance. It was done, so the Lord reveals, in a manner 'more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name's glory.' Here the Lord explains the mystery. 'Eternal punishment' is God's punishment, since he is Eternal. All the laws of God are eternal, but in meting out punishment to men in mortality, he has not declared that there is no opportunity for forgiveness even in the life to come. The Savior said, [Matt. 12:21-32 quoted]. This shows that the Savior taught that sins -- all sins, in fact, which were not unto death -- could be forgiven in the world to come.

"The same punishment follows the same offense or transgression of the law. The prison remains, it has been explained. even when the prisoner goes free: also the same punishment awaits each transgressor of each particular offense, but when the law is satisfied the prisoner goes free." (Joseph Fielding Smith, CHMR 1:87-88.)

Having gone back and reread this, I am now wondering how supportive of the idea of deception this is. He speaks of the mystery, not of an incorrect understanding. Also he explains that the fire that is unquenched really is unquenched as the "same punishment awaits each transgressor." I had not included this second paragraph in my original reading. There is also all this from Talmage given:

The Savior said, [Matt. 12:21-32 quoted]. This shows that the Savior taught that sins -- all sins, in fact, which were not unto death -- could be forgiven in the world to come.

True, we read of everlasting punishment, unending suffering, eternal damnation. [Matt. 18:8: 25:41, 46; Rev. 14:10- 11.] That is a direful expression, but in his mercy the Lord has made plain what those words mean.

The Lord has not abated in the least what he said in earlier dispensations concerning the operation of his law and his Gospel, but he had made clear unto us his goodness and mercy through it all, for it is his glory and his work to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man.

Ludlow, Daniel H. A Companion to Your Study of the Doctrine and Covenants, Volumes 1 & 2. Salt Lake City, Utah: Desert Book, 1978, Vol 1, Sec 19

While I'm not sure I agree with his reasoning, those he quotes appears to be saying or at least implying that Christ taught in NT times to the general public, not just his apostles, the limitation of punishment in the "world to come." And the last parts seem to indicate the milk/meat reading I give it as well. I'll have to do some more reading on this.

===

Brother Jackman's mind led him to praise and thank the Lord Almighty for one principle he revealed through Joseph the Prophet, different from that generally believed and taught among religionists. They, you understand, condemn all who differ from their views to hell, there to remain in a state of the most acute consciousness of the most extreme suffering throughout endless eternities, without one single ray of hope that will ever be delivered. Brother Jackman wished to speak on this point, but his heart failed him. The Lord says, through Joseph Smith, "Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name's glory; wherefore I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is mete unto you to know even as mine Apostles. I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest; for, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it? for, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name; wherefore--

148

[wenglund]

Dan Vogel: I would have responded sooner but I try to answer those who have real points to make first. Forgive the levity, but it

[Confidential Informant]

Given the discussion by X-O, maybe I will. What do you think?

I think that you'd be throwing your money down a black hole.

To correct something you said in that regard. I only work in the store part time and, in fact, my main income is my writing “business,” I do have a private business and pay my taxes accordingly. Does that change your legal opinion? Just curious? Not that I’m taking any of this seriously.

Not in the least. Like I said, one of the (if not the most important) factors that courts look at in this type of case is the "damages." The question would be, what "damages" have you suffered? Have sales of your book plummeted? Probably not. In fact, at least one poster said that he has purchased your book as a result of reading this thread.

Moreover, what's been said on this list hasn't included anything that anyone could say would "knowingly" incorrect. Fact: Dan Vogel doesn't have an advanced degree of any sort. Stating facts is NEVER libelous. Now, we can argue as to the relative importance of degrees, etc., and what having one adds or subtracts from one's work, but that is hardly libelous or defamatory in any way.

BTW, your tone is much improved on this thread. Thanks for that.

Let’s see if I can respond to some of your 12-pages of comments.

Only 12? Gee, I can go for at least 15 or 20.

It was in the book. Thought you read it?

As I recall, I said I read "major portions" of it and that was back in the early parts of August. Like I said, I really should dig it out and re-read it with a much more critical eye this time, but I've been so busy lately as to make that impracticable. (Moreover, I love fiction more than non-fiction (note: this is where I would have normally inserted the egregious cheapshot about your book, but I shall forgo in this instance in the interests of the new found collegialism on this thread) and so the book I'm reading right now is the new Dan Brown "Angels & Demons."

Interesting read so far.

I said it this way to get you to clarify. Thanks. I don’t know where you get a “few perceived anachronisms”? That must be your way of minimizing my evidence.

No, it's my way of saying that your evidence "ain't."

Well, I’m sure you have heard the phrase: “Only the dumb criminals get caught.” It’s simple logic. You never meet the successful criminals. So you can’t base your assessment on experience.

Dute couplet, but completely untrue. We catch the smart ones too, it just sometimes takes a little longer.

How about the fact that he required them to be covered? What possible reason, besides God told him not to, can you give for not showing them openly to his family and friends?

Why is that suspicious? It's also just as simple to assume that since they had the"appearance of gold" that just leaving them around uncovered might have caused undue temptation.

But beyond that fact, where did he come up with the idea that the ancient Jews (and other cultures) used metal plates as a writing medium at all?

How about the weight, between 40 to 60 pounds?

What about it? There's been plenty written on the subject of the weight of the plates. As your friend Brent would says, see here.

How about his statement that they were almost as thick as “common tin”?

Since when does a statement of comparison become a admission of fraud? If he's said they were as thick as common aluminum siding would your thesis have been that he simply fashioned them out of siding swiped from the neighbor's place?

How about the characters being copied from them not being real?

I was unaware that this had been established as fact. Apparently you are in possession of some information that the rest of us are not?

On historicity: If the BofM is ahistorical, I don’t need Smith’s confession.

Agreed. But since the question of historicity is still very much on the table, your jump seems premature.

See skeptic.com under “pious fraud.” You can start there.

Thank you. I will.

And here is the rub. Note the following exchange at the beginning of your comments:

The meaning of the first vision story changed over time, but I will not go into that here.

Good, because I'm sure it would be parsed to fit your thesis anyway.

So, if I bring forward contradiction in his accounts of his visions, you will say that I’m parsing the source to fit my thesis. But there are contradictions and evidence later expansions or anachronisms. But all this is in my book for you to check and question me about.

But the four extant First Vision accounts are not contradictory. Not one of the them gives information that is contradicted in another version. In fact, that's exactly what I'd expect. For example, the last few days I've been reviewing the various statements made by an alleged rape victime. Her first account was remarkably plain. Her secound account contained more details about her trauma. The third and fourt accounts are filled with details that the first one's didn't have. Moreover, her accounts do include a few (minor) contradictions but that's something we kind of expect also. (Like I said, if she repreated the same story rote, every time, we'd have been suspicious).

How did Mark Hoffman manufacture bombs in his basement without his wife knowing?

Different situations. If you were saying the plates were manufactured by Father Smith, then you might have point, but that doesn't work in this case. Joseph had no independant resources of his own.

If you are talking about the experience of the eight witnesses, .. that’s in my book as well. John Whitmer said he saw them by a “supernatural power.” I think that leaves open the possibility for something like hypnotism. It’s certainly not a mundane experience like some of the artist renditions portray

Hypnotism is a possibility only if you are willing to add another layer of complexity to the story you are constructing. Your "control" of parsimony would certainly mitigate against it.

As I said, there are inconsistencies, you just refuse to see them or don’t know they exist.

I should have been more plain in prior post. "Inconsistencies" are expected to a certain degree. What there aren't are contradictions in his story as would be expected. It's simply too hard to main the lies with more lies.

Under my theory, JS really believe God was the author of his deception. Hence, you can expect this pious fraud to be different than your run-of-the-mill non-theistic frauds.

Why should I expect it to be different? On what do you base that assertion besides your own presumption. You've already stated that no matter what, Joseph "knew" that the B of M was fraud. If he manufactured the plates, he knew it. At that point, it's a fraud, plain and simple. His motivations for it don't really change that as near as I can tell.

I hope you have been following my exchange with Cal, so that you better understand my position with D&C 19.

I have. It's been very interesting.

My interpretation is the most reasonable and easily defended interpretation requiring the least elaboration and assumptions.

A matter of opinion and nothing more. In fact, I think Cal's done a good job of refuting that.

You’re welcome to your own interpretation, but to think that yours somehow overturns mine is not the case.

You keep acting as if this is some sort of football game w/ winners and losers. It's not and I never claimed that my interpretation or anyone elses "overturned" yours.

So, I hope you see that your expectation is a dead end.

I dont see it as a dead end at all. Your dogmatic declaration that it is so doesn't make it so.

Maybe you have too much confidence. But whenever was JS cross examined? When was he not in control of his own story?

There were other's present who could contradict his story. For example, Smith claims in the 1838 history that there was an "unusual" excitement about religion around 1820. Marquardt and Wesley took exception and tried to prove it wasn't true. But should have had to? Joseph wasn't the only one in the area in 1820. His whole family was there, but none of them contradict his account. Martin Harris lived in the area, he never said there was no revival at the time. The Knights and others were also denizens of the region don't contradict it.

My point is that Jospeh couldn't just make up history willy nilly because he wasn't the only one who lived it. If he had simply "made up" the First Vision story in 1832, why didn't his mother, father, brothers, et al, ever ask, "Why didn't you tell us this before?" Moreover, if his 1832 and 1835 accounts contradict the 1838 and 1842 accounts, why didn't anyone call him on those contradictions at the time?

However, I point out that there are problems with suppression of evidence and inconsistency – you just don’t see it because you’re too busy being defense attorney.

Of course, the suppression of evidence claim (it must a historic claim since Bagley hangs his hat on that one a lot too) suffers the same problem you claim my conspiracy theory does: If the evidence was suppressed, how would you know it?

Unfortunately, I have a cleanup on aisle three and must go now.

Me too. If fact, check out the press conference called by the Utah County Attorney's office at 1:00 p.m. today (December 3) to watch it get cleaned up.

C.I.

[Dan Vogel]

Wade,

As I said, you are not making a significant point. We all know we have different points of view. But aren

[Dan Vogel]

Cal,

Thanks for the quotes and explanations of what you think they are saying.

Let me state that I am not persuaded by your analysis of D&C 19, nor do I believe the quotes you provided support your interpretation. No matter how much verbiage you try to pile on this problem (you write like your getting paid by the word), the central point that the revelation is trying to make won

[Mighty Curelom]

I wonder is CI uses his "believer's paradigm" when assessing the claims of other religions. Does he believe Mohammed was actually a prophet of God and that the Koran is inspired revelation? What about the origins of Baha'i, Hinduism or Sikhism?

Vogel is simply using the same method of critical analysis to interpret Mormon origins that a Mormon would use to interpret the origin of any other religion founded on supernatural claims. If CI fully embraced a "believers paradigm", he would have to accept all other religious claims, even those which contradict his own religious beliefs.

A quote comes to mind- "We're both atheists. I just believe in one less God than you". By claiming Mormonism is the only true religion, CI is using both a believer paradigm and a unbeliever paradigm, applying the former to his own beliefs while applying the latter to all other religious beliefs. This makes his criticism of Vogel's unbeliever paradigm rather hypocritical.

[beastie]

Much of this conversation about lying versus milk before meat feels like parsing around the technical edges to me. If you think about real life examples of this phenomenon, most people would feel comfortable labeling it a lie.

Examples:

Suspicious wife asks husband if he is having an affair with secretary. Husband, repentant and chagrined, admits that he took secretary to lunch and kissed her. He omits that they went to a hotel afterwards and had sex. Was he lying, or just giving milk before meat?

Bill Clinton said he "did not have sex with that woman", while privately defining "sex" as intercouse alone, knowing that his listeners would have likely include his acts as part of "sex". Was this a lie?

Child asks parent "is Santa Claus real? Big brother says he's not." Parent replies of course he is, privately defining santa claus as the spirit of Christmas and giving. Was this a lie?

Of course there are times when lies are justified. Others have mentioned parents already, lying in order to avoid giving children information they are not ready for. Or we can all easily visualize times when lying is truly the more ethical choice.

This is why I simply do not understand the fixation on the D&C passage, rather than Dan's larger point. Does God sometimes condone lying for a higher good? Most theists say yes. Does D&C qualify as an example? I think it does, because hiding information, or using misleading terms, is a form of lying. But even if some on this thread will never accept it as an example, the larger point stands. God does condone lying at times for a higher good.

So what did JS do or say in his life that could demonstrate he also believed in lying at times for a greater good?

[Calm]

I have not heard of the idea of "milk before meat" used in a context other than education (primarily religious). Perhaps you could provide examples of this usage?

This is why I simply do not understand the fixation on the D&C passage

I don't have access to Mr. Vogel's book. The D&C passage was brought up by him as evidence and explained sufficiently that it appeared to be a good opportunity to explore how he approached his subject. Generally what I do when examining an argument (or creating one for that matter) is deal with the evidences individually (case by case as Mr. Vogel talked about earlier) to see if they are applicable first and then see if they also fit together globally.

[beastie]

Milk before meat is a term that has been used primarily in context of religious education (which may be telling in and of itself), but the concept can certainly be applied to nonreligious examples, such as the ones I already cited. For example, maybe the unfaithful husband plans on later telling his wife that he actually had intercourse with his secretary, when she is ready to "handle" it, just not now. The parent will tell their child later that Santa Claus is not real, when the child is ready to handle it. Milk before meat is just the idea of the person who is holding back pertinent information deciding that he/she is justified in doing so for the other person's sake. While milk before meat sounds less harsh than lying, it is a form of dishonesty.

[Calm]

No matter how much verbiage you try to pile on this problem (you write like your getting paid by the word),

Well, when I tried to say it briefly, you misread what I was saying. I'll try keep it short this time, but it's been hard because of your own detailed comments, occasional misreadings and you not dealing with some of my comments in the first place that forced repetition of them.

the central point that the revelation is trying to make won

[Calm]

the concept can certainly be applied to nonreligious examples, such as the ones I already cited.

Of course it can. But was Joseph doing that? He was writing a relgious commentary after all. The natural assumption would be a religious context.

[beastie]

Of course it can. But was Joseph doing that? He was writing a relgious commentary after all. The natural assumption would be a religious context.

I really don't understand your previous point, in view of this response. Why did you mention the religious versus nonreligious point if it is a moot point?

I suggest looking at church history to determine whether or not things were said or done that were, to use the gentler reference, "milk before meat". If JS can be shown to have engaged in that sort of editing or redactions, then it is not unreasonable to conclude he may have been willing to use this sort of logic in regards to some of his most basic claims about the restoration of the church. For example, perhaps he actually did believe a genuine history was being "revealed" to him through internal revelation and was being expressed in the BoM. But perhaps he realized people would need something firmer than that to encourage belief. They needed something more tangible, like the actual original ancient text. It's milk to provide that needed testimonial prop for people, and meat to later discover (as they would at least in the next life) that it was a prop to encourage belief. But by then, the good was achieved. Souls were saved.

It's like LDS missionaries downplaying polygamy in the early days of the church. To tell people too early about polygamy would be an unnecessary obstacle to belief. They can find out later, when their faith is stronger and they can handle it.

After all, what purpose did the plates serve, at all, other than to encourage belief? They certainly weren't necessary in any way for translation to take place.

[Calm]

Why did you mention the religious versus nonreligious point if it is a moot point?

You are the one who brought up the nonreligious examples. I consider your examples irrelevant unless you can demonstrate that Joseph understood the milk/meat concept in this manner. One can assume that he understood it in the religious context because he uses it in a religioius context, but more as well? Simply because you can reinterpret it to extend beyond religious education doesnt' mean that Joseph is doing so.

It's milk to provide that needed testimonial prop for people, and meat to later discover

According to your interpretation. This is not how it's explained in the scriptures, the religious context I am talking about, where milk is an easily accepted eternal truth and meat are the mysteries that offer further explanation and detail on them. Assuming that Joseph might read it this way is not enough. You need to demonstrate that he understood the 'milk/meat' educational paradigm in this manner.

I think you are also confused about what I am arguing against here.

Again, let me state that I see some evidence for in the scriptures of God promoting deception when it comes to human relationships. I am unaware of evidence where God promotes the pushing of false doctrine for whatever reason. That is not to say that I wouldn't accept it if I saw it in a passage that clearly indicates it. I believe that using D&C 19 to do so is too weak. If this argument for pious fraud when it comes to doctrine is so strong, there should be other stronger evidence out there to be examined.

I am not arguing against the existence of other evidence. I am only arguing against using D&C in this manner. If you don't think we should fixate on D&C 19 this way, then all that needs to be done is to remove it from the 'evidence list' and use something else to support the pious fraud argument.

For example, perhaps he actually did believe a genuine history was being "revealed" to him through internal revelation and was being expressed in the BoM.

Aren;t you saying here that he believed he was teaching true doctrine then? If so, this doesn't contradict my position at all so I am unsure whether or not you understand it.

[beastie]

Aren;t you saying here that he believed he was teaching true doctrine then? If so, this doesn't contradict my position at all so I am unsure whether or not you understand it.

I thought that was the whole point of being a pious fraud. The piety comes from genuinely believing in the truth of what you are teaching. The fraud comes from being willing to use deceptive props to encourage people to believe what you think they ought to believe.

I think that Joseph's behavior with polygamy aptly demonstrates milk before meat. He wasn't lying just to people who could conceivably threaten his life - he was lying to members of the church. They weren't ready for the higher truths. IIRC, JS once said in his School of Prophets that if he were to teach members a tenth of the truths he knew, they'd stone him (paraphrasing). This attitude is reflected in the modern church, as well, which doesn't teach investigators specifically about becoming gods like god. (unless the discussions have changed)

I admit to only having read one half of Making of A Prophet at this point (it is very difficult for me to tear myself away from studying the maya right now, I'm also only half way through three other books - but so far my understanding is that this is Vogel's point. Maybe you actually agree with him. Hopefully he will come back and clarify for us.

BTW, if Dan does come back, I want to thank him for his Early Mormon Documents series. I only have two so far (again, the mayans keep consuming my book budget, which should be zero at this point anyway). It is an amazing work, and I love the idea of putting together so many documents for interested lay people like me. Eventually I will own the whole series. Maybe I'll make that my New Year's goal, eh?

[Calm]

I thought that was the whole point of being a pious fraud.

Not according to the argument that Mr. Vogel is presenting for D&C 19 as far as I can tell.

His claim is that D&C 19 demonstrates that God is the author/promoter of deception for the ultimate purpose of good (which I assume means bringing men to salvation). In this specific case, that deception would be doctrinal, ie. promotion of a misconception of truth, not the truth itself.

I think that Joseph's behavior with polygamy aptly demonstrates milk before meat. He wasn't lying just to people...

Maybe for your concept of "milk before meat." But not for Joseph unless you assume that he use "milk before meat" in the same way you do.

They weren't ready for the higher truths.

Why do you have to use "higher truths" in relation to the "milk and meat argument"? The only reason you would need to do that is if the "lower truths" of milk were in fact truths and not misconceptions or falsehoods. Even in the way you present it is the assumption that the "milk" is a truth, not a falsehood/misconception.

IIRC, JS once said in his School of Prophets that if he were to teach members a tenth of the truths he knew, they'd stone him (paraphrasing).

Does this demonstrate that he was lying to them or just not telling them everything he knew and intended that lack of information to mislead them?

[beastie]

Not according to the argument that Mr. Vogel is presenting for D&C 19 as far as I can tell.

His claim is that D&C 19 demonstrates that God is the author/promoter of deception for the ultimate purpose of good (which I assume means bringing men to salvation). In this specific case, that deception would be doctrinal, ie. promotion of a misconception of truth, not the truth itself.

His claim is that Joseph Smith believed that God was the author of this pious deception. Given that you accept God would, at times, condone deception for the greater good, I'm not certain why this would be so unacceptable to you.

Maybe for your concept of "milk before meat." But not for Joseph unless you assume that he use "milk before meat" in the same way you do.

I'm trying to be generous to Joseph.

Why do you have to use "higher truths" in relation to the "milk and meat argument"? The only reason you would need to do that is if the "lower truths" of milk were in fact truths and not misconceptions or falsehoods. Even in the way you present it is the assumption that the "milk" is a truth, not a falsehood/misconception.

We covered this ground already. Omission of crucial information is deception, even when motivated by noble intent.

Does this demonstrate that he was lying to them or just not telling them everything he knew and intended that lack of information to mislead them?

I don't think we can say in that particular case, but I would say that there is evidence to support that JS was willing to mislead people, even his own followers.

[Calm]

I'm not certain why this [false doctrine being preached as truth] would be so unacceptable to you.

And I'm not certain why you keep assuming this would be so unacceptable to me.

I just haven't seen what I consider decent evidence for it in D&C 19. There are other readings/interpretations that require less assuming and employ, imo, more common usage forms.

I'm trying to be generous to Joseph.

Generous in regards to what? What does generousity have to do with how Joseph preceived the milk/meat educational concept? I am talking about how verses 21 and 22 are meant to provide a framework for the revelation (first section the milk/simple knowledge and preparation, second section the meat/mystery and further development of milk concept). If Joseph used milk/meat in the same way as the rest of the scriptures do, then the 'milk' cannot be a nontruth and it explains the reason for the structure and development of the discussion quite well.

We covered this ground already.

[beastie]

And I'm not certain why you keep assuming this would be so unacceptable to me.

I just haven't seen what I consider decent evidence for it in D&C 19. There are other readings/interpretations that require less assuming and employ, imo, more common usage forms.

Fine. I don't think it's necessary to accept D&C 19 as an example to accept Vogel's larger point. Perhaps you can concede that Vogel's interpretation is as reasonable as yours. It's not illogical or extreme. In fact, it is the way I always understood that verse. My understanding, as a believer, was that human beings were at different levels of spiritual ability and capacity, and for that reason, God had to "tailor" teachings to help them as best he could, given their current levels. So to allow a misunderstanding to exist in order to help motivate those particular people made sense to me. It had to be that explanation, because translation errors wouldn't do since the idea is repeated in the BoM.

Generous in regards to what? What does generousity have to do with how Joseph preceived the milk/meat educational concept? I am talking about how verses 21 and 22 are meant to provide a framework for the revelation (first section the milk/simple knowledge and preparation, second section the meat/mystery and further development of milk concept). If Joseph used milk/meat in the same way as the rest of the scriptures do, then the 'milk' cannot be a nontruth and it explains the reason for the structure and development of the discussion quite well.

Generous in terms of his motivations for lying. As we have agreed before, milk is a form of nontruth.

Indeed we have. I've stated that this is my personal stance. However, not everyone holds this same standard. I do not believe it is always the legal standard either. I do not know if it was Joseph's. Nor am I certain that it is God's, though I am assuming that it likely is.

"Crucial" in what way? In this particular case, not crucial in terms of salvation as God does not hold people accountable for what they don't know (at least according to LDS theology). According to Mr. Vogel's interpretation, it appears to be crucial that the information is omitted, at least as far as salvation is concerned.

But intent of deception has not been proven in this case to my mind. My minidiscourse on intended effects vs. unintended side effects covered this sufficiently, I believe.

Crucial in terms of understanding the answer correctly. If it's not crucial information, then it wouldn't be significant enough to be considered a candidate for omission. A minor detail isn't going to make a difference. It's crucial information to understand how God defines a term he is using in his conversation with human beings, just like it was crucial to us to understand Clinton's definition of "sex". Without that information, we do not truly understand the reality of the answer. The milk is misleading, because it omits somethingn that is essential to understanding actual reality.

I'd like to see what you consider as evidence in other cases. It is highly likely that there would be some cases that I agree with you as far as human relationships. I can't say as far as teaching false doctrine as truth because at this time I am unaware of any likely possibilities. I would be very interested in the latter, not terribly interested at this time in the former though as it's not much of a controversy as far as I'm concerned.

You're fixating on a detail, "false doctrine". For example, if JS created plates, and created a story about finding them, is that "false doctrine"? Why does it have to be "false doctrine"? Being willing to lie for the good of others is what needs to be demonstrated.

Of course, polygamy is a doctrine of the church, and JS lied about it to the members.

Another example would be the later alterations of history. I think the differences in the various first visions are too fundamental to be chalked up to memory or emphasizing different facets. The redacted evidence for the restoration of the priesthood is another.

There are also cases where it appears JS lied with baser motives. All his involvement with treasure digging, for example, are examples of lies to me. I'm not sure how a current believer would interpret that information. Do believers actually think JS could look into a rock and see a buried treasure, and that the only reason his fellow seekers didn't find it was because there was an enchantment on it that made it keep moving?

[Calm]

As we have agreed before, milk is a form of nontruth.

No, we have not. That is what I am arguing hasn't been proved. I think the scriptures use milk/meat as an educational framework. I think the speaker of D&C 19 used it that way. Unless you are claiming that teaching a child simple math is a form of nontruth, we are not in agreement on this point.

Incomplete truth may or may not be a form of nontruth. It depends on the intent of the speaker--does he intend the individual to draw the wrong conclusion or is further knowledge thought unnecessary or confusing at that time for development or just inapporiate to be shared at that time. For example, I am withholding some of my thoughts on this because I don't see them necessary to get my point across. I may be wrong, I have been already in this thread; that is no indication of my intent however.

Leaving gaps in a person's knowledge will likely result in some form of misunderstanding, one only needs to look at this thread and see where Mr. Vogel misunderstood me due to incomplete information of my position being given by me and the reverse as well. On occasion, people will tend to work at filling in the gaps with knowledge that is beyond their current level of comprehension--that's one of the reasons science occurs; but for the most part people are content to construct scenarios without that type of effort. (Think of "Kids say the Darndest Things" here.) Knowing and accepting this as a fact of human existence is not the same thing as promoting it.

You're fixating on a detail, "false doctrine". For example, if JS created plates, and created a story about finding them, is that "false doctrine"?

There is a reason why I find the distinction between doctrine and behaviour significant.

As to the story, that would depend on the story. I think the best way to understand how I'm thinking of "doctrine" here is the idea of "eternal truth." If something is being taught as an eternal truth (the nature of God, man, plan of salvation, etc.), then this is the type of doctrine that I mean. One could teach the doctrine of the Godhood with the First Vision without having all the First Vision details true (I am not saying this is what Joseph did). Think of it as abstract or timespanning, applied to more than one event concepts versus concrete descriptive of specific behaviour or events.

One could also approach it as the distinction that Mr. Vogel makes between historical and spiritual realities. I doubt that I am using it just like him (I as still confused as to the exact distinction he makes since he makes the statement that he doesn't address the truth claims of a relgion, yet he definitely involves himself in the historical truth claims of LDS belief), but it is an easy way to verbalize the concepts.

If you wish me to go into the reason why I think the difference is signficant enough for doctrinal understanding to merit separate treatment from human relationship/behavioural interaction, I will be happy to; but it will involve a lengthy explanation so I'll wait for interest to be expressed.

[beastie]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. IMO, when omission of crucial information (ie, information that is necessary to understand the actual reality), when done by someone who knows that omission will result in such misunderstanding, is a form of dishonesty. Albeit it may be with good intent, but it's still dishonesty, and a form of lying. The reason I used secular examples beforehand was to try and demonstrate that, outside the religious context, if someone engaged in "milk before meat" in your actual life, you would likely view it as a form of dishonesty, benevolent or not.

You don't have to go into more lengthy about the doctrine fixation. I think I understand well enough for the purposes of this conversation.

I wish you could read Vogel's book. I think you're a little off here in your focus, (in terms of this discussion) and not having read it is likely part of the reason why.

[Confidential Informant]

I wonder is CI uses his "believer's paradigm" when assessing the claims of other religions. Does he believe Mohammed was actually a prophet of God and that the Koran is inspired revelation? What about the origins of Baha'i, Hinduism or Sikhism?

Vogel is simply using the same method of critical analysis to interpret Mormon origins that a Mormon would use to interpret the origin of any other religion founded on supernatural claims. If CI fully embraced a "believers paradigm", he would have to accept all other religious claims, even those which contradict his own religious beliefs.

A quote comes to mind- "We're both atheists. I just believe in one less God than you". By claiming Mormonism is the only true religion, CI is using both a believer paradigm and a unbeliever paradigm, applying the former to his own beliefs while applying the latter to all other religious beliefs. This makes his criticism of Vogel's unbeliever paradigm rather hypocritical.

Maybe you noted this already but if not, might I ask if you don't have the wrong person as the subject of your objection? I don't recall discussing believer's paradigms, etc. Are you referring, perhaps to Wade or some other poster?

C.I.