Dan Peterson: "Why I Can't Manage To Disbelieve"

[hope_for_things]

20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks for these quotes- I had missed these articles

I have debated Vogel on this board on this very basis- his positivism - and he showed absolutely no comprehension of epistemology whatsoever.  His arguments are sophomoric and based on semantic confusions which he chooses to ignore when confronted.  

 

31 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I've always thought it was rather simple to find responses to Dan Vogel.  Richard L. Anderson, for instance, long known for his Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, here writing in regard to "Attempts to Redefine the Experience of the Eight WItnesses"

I'm pretty new to the whole world of Mormon Studies (a little more than 3 years of exposure).  I have been reading a lot of authors and essays, and I find both of your comments about Vogel to be surprising.  From what I've read about his scholarship, he's well respected in Mormon history circles, and his research is some of the best research out there on primary sources.  I know that he's not a believer, but I've found his approach to be pretty even handed on many subjects.  I'm disappointed to hear his work being thrown under the bus here.

To Kevin, for Vogel's work on the witnesses, I've found his perspectives to be asking important questions that I haven't found good responses to in the apologetic community. 

[smac97]

17 hours ago, cinepro said:

Uh, no.  Someone can criticize, "attack", or interact in any way they like with any theory without shouldering the responsibility to provide an alternate explanation. 

But that's not what Scott said.  Rather, he said this:

Quote

We don't ask anyone to do do anything other than keep an open mind enough to go to God in humble prayer. 

But if someone attacks the account of the Book of Mormon origins, he'd better be forthcoming with a viable alternative explanation, or he's not worthy of being taken seriously.

I think this is a valid point. If a critic of The Book of Mormon is unable and/or unwilling to provide an alternative theory for the origin of the text, that is, for me, a significant point.  It rather strongly suggests that the critic, as invested as he is in debunking the LDS Church's explanation of The Book of Mormon, is nevertheless incapable of surveying the historical record and the evidence pertaining to The Book of Mormon and providing a coherent counter-theory.

So with respect, I will have to disagree with you.  The Church has presented a theory about the origins of The Book of Mormon.   In contrast, we have countervailing views from people who have rejected the Church's teachings about the origins of The Book of Mormon.  That is certainly their prerogative.  But at that point they are the ones making a claim.  They are the ones asserting that the Church's teachings about the origins of the book are factually false.  They are the ones making assertions about naturalistic or quasi-religious-but-still-rejecting-the-Church's-position explanations for The Book of Mormon.  The "Inspired Fiction" theory is an example of such countervailing explanations for the existence and content of the text, as is the Spaulding-Rigdon Theory (and other "multiple author" theories), the "Joseph Smith as the sole author" theory, the"View of the Hebrews" theory, Grant Palmer's "The Golden Pot" theory,  "The Late War" theory, and so on.

You are proposing that critics of The Book of Mormon are not obligated to substantiate their naturalistic theories as to the book's origins, and that we should instead accept those theories . . . on what basis?  Faith?

Quote

Your statement is based on a singular and obviously false premise: that of all the existing theories, one will be correct, and if not, then someone can "be forthcoming" of the correct theory either through logic, imagination, guessing or some other human talent.

I'm not sure that's an accurate statement.  What we have is a very controversial claim (or series of claims): That God appeared to Joseph Smith, that God sent angelic messengers to Joseph Smith, that one of these gave instructions to Joseph about there being "a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang," that Joseph eventually uncovered and obtained possession of this record, that this record was an actual, physical object, that it was an ancient historical record, and that Joseph Smith translated the book through miraculous means, "by the gift and power of God."  The Church has presented "evidence" of these claims, some of which is inherently subjective (Moroni 10:3-5), but some of which is, to some extent, subject to empirical scrutiny (the testimonies of the Witnesses, the complexity of the plates, the brief period during which it was written relative to Joseph Smith's lack of education, the presence in the text of various markers of antiquity, and so on).

Now, I concede that the Church's position on this issue is not a slam dunk.  Reasonable minds can disagree about the origins of The Book of Mormon.  But that's where "reason" comes into play.  Explanation.  Assessment of the evidence.  The Church and its defenders have spent many years presenting plausible explanations for the text and its complexities.  In contrast, the critics have pretty much embarrassed themselves in their assessment of the evidence.   Try as they might, critics and dissidents simply cannot formulate a coherent alternative explanation for where the text came from.  Joseph Smith could not have done it.  Conspiracy theories about Joseph Smith collaborating with unknown others don't work, either.  It is very interesting to me that we are coming up on 200 years of critical scrutiny of The Book of Mormon, and yet nobody has been able to present a coherent explanation that accounts for the existence of the text, the complexity and internal consistency of the narrative, the extremely short time period in which it was "written," the textual evidences that were simply unknown/unknowable to Joseph Smith and his fellows (Nahom/Bountiful is an excellent example of this), the reality of the Gold Plates and the testimony of the witnesses, and so on.

Dan Peterson makes a valid point:

Quote

My argument would be that all of the counter-explanations of the Book of Mormon that I’ve looked at – and I think I’ve looked at all of them – run into walls. You eventually run into something where, it simply can’t get you there. It can’t explain everything that needs to be explained. And so I sometimes see, well, I’ve had people tell me, “Look, I don’t owe you an explanation for the Book of Mormon. All I have to say is I don’t believe it.” Well, of course, you know, you can make your own decision, lead your life the way you want to, but it seems to me intellectually honestly that you really should try to come up with a counter-explanation. If you think Joseph Smith wrote it, how did he do it? If you think there were no plates, what’s going on there? You need to come up with another explanation.

But you need to come up with a counter-explanation, a complete, comprehensive theory, that accounts for all of the things, not just one aspect, all of the data. And that’s hard to do, and I would say so far I just don’t believe it can be done.

I guess technically you are ultimately correct.  There is no "obligation" or "responsibility" for folks advocating a naturalistic explanation for the text to actually defend or explain their position.  We are all here voluntarily.  This is just an online message board.  We are free to participate as much or as little as we like.  

But at the end of the day, critics who affirmatively insist on a naturalistic explanation for The Book or Mormon, but who feel no need to actually marshal evidence and argument to substantiate that position, are just embarrassing themselves.  Ironically, these folks - who I think would like to think of themselves as being open-minded, rational, etc., are engaging in conduct that is inherently closed-minded and irrational.  To again quote Dan Peterson:

Quote

The most serious contemporary criticisms of the Book of Mormon and of Mormonism more broadly tend to come not from self-proclaimed orthodox (i.e., usually Evangelical) Christians, but from self-identified atheistic materialists or naturalists. The Utah-based historian Dale Morgan, largely forgotten today but still much admired in certain small contemporary circles, wrote a 1945 letter to the believing Latter-day Saint historian Juanita Brooks. In it, he identifies the fundamental issue with unusual candor:

Quote

With my point of view on God, I am incapable of accepting the claims of Joseph Smith and the Mormons, be they however so convincing. If God does not exist, how can Joseph Smith’s story have any possible validity? I will look everywhere for explanations except to the ONE explanation that is the position of the church.

 

Dale Morgan is the standard-bearer for the types of critics described by Cinepro.  Not very inspiring, he.

Back to you:

Quote

The fact is, there may be an infinite number of things for which there is no known "true" theory about their origin, and that no matter how much people guess, deduce, imagine or otherwise consider it, they may not stumble upon the true theory. 

In other words, the true theory may remain unknown. 

The fact that it remains unknown does not automatically make one of the other theories more true, or less exposed to criticism and attacks.

But we're talking about two different things.  I don't think Scott has said that the Church's position on The Book of Mormon is privileged, that it should be immune from "criticism and attacks."

Rather, I think he is saying that the position of the critics is mighty weak tea.  You seem to be buying into Dale Morgan's line of "reasoning," such as it is.  "I will look everywhere for explanations except to the ONE explanation that is the position of the church."

Well, as you like.  But at least the Mormons are taking the field.  At least they are engaging in assessment of the evidence and defending their position based on it.  Folks like you, on the other hand, are throwing their hands up in the air and insisting that the origins of the text "remain unknown."  

What kind of assessment of the evidence is that?

Quote

It should also be pointed out that if we are willing to allow supernatural or unfalsifiable theories into the mix, the supernatural theories will always appear to be better than the alternate "natural" ones.  Because once you can fill in the gaps with "...and God did it" there are no more gaps, and your theory is now 100% logical and complete. 

This is a marvelously false characterization of the LDS position on The Book of Mormon.  None of us believe we have all the answers.  None of us have postulated that our beliefs about The Book of Mormon constitute a "theory" that is "100% logical and complete."  This is simply a Straw Man argument ("{an} attempt to 'prove' an argument by overstating, exaggerating, or over-simplifying the arguments of the opposing side").

In the end, I think Dan Peterson's assessment merits repetition (emphasis added):

Quote

I want to suggest something like that in this case, that to me, the explanation of Joseph Smith is simple and elegant, and the alternative explanations just don’t work and they get more and more complex and it’s just too much for me, and so I’ve said sometimes that I simply don’t have the faith to disbelieve Joseph Smith’s story. I just can’t get there. I can’t do it. And I’ve tried. I’ve really tried to give it a serious look. I cannot put together hallucinatory explanations of the witnesses and stealing from Solomon Spaulding and stealing from Ethan Smith, and I’m just mentioning a few, and putting it all together. Joseph Smith, this incredibly learned young man who’s sitting there on the frontier.

...

I remember my friend Bill Hamblin once being in communication with a one-time, fairly prominent, ex-member critic of the Church and of the Book of Mormon. And he said, “Look, let’s assume for a moment that you’re right and that Joseph Smith did not have plates. Did he know that he didn’t have plates or did he think that he had the plates? In other words, was he a conscious deceiver, or was he in some sense mad?”

To which this critic responded: “I don’t have to lower myself to your simplistic little dichotomies.”

Well, see, I think it’s intellectually incumbent upon people like that to, come on, give us an answer to this. Otherwise it’s like guerrilla warfare. You attack and attack and attack, you always withdraw, you never defend territory. You never have to stake out your own explanation, which then will be subject to criticism and attack.

Well said!

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 29, 2016 by smac97

[rockpond]

On 8/26/2016 at 4:38 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

This, as much as any of the FairMormon Conference presentations that have been highlighted on this board so far, deserves its own thread. So I'm starting one here.

I read the intro and really liked it... so I've sent it to my kindle to read the entire thing when I have time.  But what I didn't like was the slide with the breakdown of his "Joseph had plates / didn't have plates" logic.  I think he limits the logical options way too much to be considered a valid logical structure.  But, like I said, I haven't read the whole thing.  Maybe there is more.  I'm looking forward to studying the entire transcript.  Thanks for posting.

[mfbukowski]

30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 

I'm pretty new to the whole world of Mormon Studies (a little more than 3 years of exposure).  I have been reading a lot of authors and essays, and I find both of your comments about Vogel to be surprising.  From what I've read about his scholarship, he's well respected in Mormon history circles, and his research is some of the best research out there on primary sources.  I know that he's not a believer, but I've found his approach to be pretty even handed on many subjects.  I'm disappointed to hear his work being thrown under the bus here.

To Kevin, for Vogel's work on the witnesses, I've found his perspectives to be asking important questions that I haven't found good responses to in the apologetic community. 

I suggest you read Alan Goff's article in Interpreter quoted by Kevin, above.   Yes there are many Mormon theorists who also unfortunately are positivists or who ignore the issue entirely.  There have been famous debates between Mormon theorists advocating positivism without even being aware that they were.

I always find it curious when Mormons advocate positivism because without knowing it, they are advocating that revelations and visions cannot possibly be "true".  Belief in general that "truth vs error" can be clearly established, is positivism.

Goff's article is long and somewhat technical but it is right on the money.  It could be shorter but he nails it.

[smac97]

32 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I read the intro and really liked it... so I've sent it to my kindle to read the entire thing when I have time.  But what I didn't like was the slide with the breakdown of his "Joseph had plates / didn't have plates" logic.  I think he limits the logical options way too much to be considered a valid logical structure.  But, like I said, I haven't read the whole thing.  Maybe there is more.  I'm looking forward to studying the entire transcript.  Thanks for posting.

Here's the slide:

I think Dr. Peterson has covered pretty much all of the logical alternative explanations for the Plates.  Here's my take of the options:

1. Joseph had no plates, and his claims to the contrary can be attributed to him being a cynical (i.e., intentional, mendacious) fraud (corresponds to DCP's point A.1.a);
2. Joseph had no plates, and his claims to the contrary can be attributed to him being a pious (i.e., well-intentioned, misguided-but-sincere) fraud (corresponds to DCP's point A.1.b);
3. Joseph had no plates, and his claims to the contrary can be attributed to him being deluded (i.e., mental handicap/ illness, drug- or trauma-induced brain injury, etc.) (corresponds to DCP's point A.2);
4. Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he fabricated them as part of being a cynical (i.e., intentional, mendacious) fraud (corresponds to DCP's point B.1.a);
5. Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he fabricated them as part of being a pious (i.e., well-intentioned, misguided-but-sincere) fraud (corresponds to DCP's point B.1.b);
6. Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he fabricated them as part of being deluded (i.e., mental handicap/ illness, drug- or trauma-induced brain injury, etc.) (no corresponding point in DCP's slide);
7. Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he received them from a contemporary (or a group of contemporaries) who fabricated them (corresponds to DCP's point B.2.a);
8. Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he received them from a non-contemporary (or a group of non-contemporaries) who fabricated them (corresponds to DCP's point B.2.b).

I think the weight of the historical evidence at hand makes options 4-8 substantially more likely than options 1-3.  There were simply too many people who saw the plates.  

Of the remaining options, I think insanity/mental illness (# 6 above) does not seem warranted.  Accusations of mental illness are essentially devoid of evidence.

I also think the remaining "cynical fraud" theory (#4) is not plausible.  Joseph's personal writings give no hint whatsoever to such motives.  (As Dr. Peterson noted: "One of the places you run into issues is with Joseph Smith’s writings, which are now being published, the personal writings of Joseph Smith, the Joseph Smith Papers. If Joseph Smith is not sincere, then I can’t judge sincerity in another human being.")

So that would leave essentially three options, namely, #5, #7 and #8:

• Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he fabricated them as part of being a pious (i.e., well-intentioned, misguided-but-sincere) fraud (I think the "Inspired Fiction" theory would need to be categorized here);
• Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he received them from a contemporary (or a group of contemporaries) who fabricated them (corresponds to DCP's point B.2.a);
• Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he received them from a non-contemporary (or a group of non-contemporaries) who fabricated them (corresponds to DCP's point B.2.b).

I think there are some rather substantial flaws in these, as outlined in DCP's remarks.

So the 9th option comes into play: Joseph had actual, physical, authentically ancient, plates because he received them from a non-contemporary, a resurrected being named Moroni, who led Joseph to where the plates had been buried centuries before.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 29, 2016 by smac97

[Nofear]

I quite like Dr. Peterson's talk. It largely mirrors my own experience -- even if he had more patience in pursuing some of the dead ends than I did/do. I endorse, for what very little it's worth, his article.

I preface all that just so I can add a bit of orneriness. Occam's razor was used as a paradigm to discredit much of the nonsensical explanations (and they are nonsensical). But Occam's Razor may have its own limitations ... maybe, maybe not.
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/08/occams-razor/495332/
But, then again, not buying into Occam's razor would be less simple and therefore the not likely scenario.

[Kevin Christensen]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

 

I'm pretty new to the whole world of Mormon Studies (a little more than 3 years of exposure).  I have been reading a lot of authors and essays, and I find both of your comments about Vogel to be surprising.  From what I've read about his scholarship, he's well respected in Mormon history circles, and his research is some of the best research out there on primary sources.  I know that he's not a believer, but I've found his approach to be pretty even handed on many subjects.  I'm disappointed to hear his work being thrown under the bus here.

To Kevin, for Vogel's work on the witnesses, I've found his perspectives to be asking important questions that I haven't found good responses to in the apologetic community. 

You might also find Larry Morris's work provides helpful perspectives.  Morris published an important book on Cowdery.

Quote

Next we move on to Dan Vogel. Several years ago, I was on a book-buying binge at Sam Weller’s when I came across a copy of Early Mormon Documents, volume 1. When you are reading history, there is no substitute for the original documents. I was impressed with Vogel’s textual editing and annotation, and I picked up a copy. I also purchased volumes 2, 3, and 4 when they came out (that is no small investment). Vogel finds a lot of interesting documents in a lot of different places. He also locates vital records, census records, and so on, about most of the people mentioned in the documents. I consider him an expert on primary sources related to early Mormonism and appreciate his considerable research. I took a careful look at what he had to say about the Wood Scrape, for example, and found him to be careful and fair, correctly noting instances where Quinn had overstepped the sources.

But in his article on the witnesses, Vogel does some things that surprised me. First, he quotes nineteenth-century sources like John A. Clark and Thomas Ford in a rather uncritical manner. I don’t understand that. I assume Vogel agrees that when it comes to testimony, there is no substitute for getting (to use another equine metaphor) something straight from the horse’s mouth. If I want to know what William Clark said about the Lewis and Clark expedition, my best source is William Clark himself. (If I want to know about William Clark’s character, on the other hand, my best source is reliable people who knew him well.) Of course, what he said and the accuracy of what he said are two different things. But before I can judge his testimony against other sources and evaluate it, I first need the testimony itself. And witnesses always have the final word on what their testimony is—that is the very nature of testimony.

If such firsthand testimony is not available, we turn to secondhand sources, what in court is called “hearsay evidence” (and is generally not allowed). But it is a dangerous thing to trust expedition member John Ordway for what Clark said about the journey. We now have to ask a whole slew of questions we did not have to ask about Clark—when Ordway recorded Clark’s statements, whether his memory was reliable, whether he was a careful transcriber, whether he was honest, whether he had an ax to grind. We also need to compare Ordway’s account to other secondhand accounts. History, of course, employs different standards than the courtroom, and historians naturally handle a good deal of hearsay testimony. I just believe they ought to always distinguish between first- and secondhand testimony and openly acknowledge the limitations of the latter.

Well, then, what about Clark and Ford? Both gave reports of what Book of Mormon witnesses supposedly said. Clark was an editor and minister who knew Martin Harris. According to Vogel, “Harris told John A. Clark in 1828 that he saw the plates ‘with the eye of faith . . . just as distinctly as I see any thing around me,—though at the time they were covered over with a cloth'” (p. 104). What? This account from a secondhand witness raises some interesting questions about Martin Harris.³³

But let us look at the source. Here is the context of the above quotation, taken from a letter from John A. Clark to The Episcopal Reader: “To know how much this testimony [of Three Witnesses] is worth I will state one fact. A gentleman in Palmyra, bred to the law, a professor of religion, and of undoubted veracity told me that on one occasion, he appealed to Harris and asked him directly,—’Did you see those plates?'”³⁴

This won’t do. Vogel’s claim that “Harris told John A. Clark” is not accurate. This is not secondhand testimony but thirdhand—”he said that he said that he said.” If secondhand evidence is problematic, thirdhand evidence is hugely more so. As if that weren’t enough, Clark does not name his source—making it impossible to judge that person’s honesty or reliability. What we have is a thirdhand, anonymous account of what Martin Harris supposedly said. (I think that is called a rumor.) Either through neglect or intent, Vogel has represented an anonymous, thirdhand account as being an identified, secondhand account—and there is a vast difference. And since we have Harris’s firsthand account—it is printed in the Book of Mormon—and several recorded interviews from both friendly and hostile sources (see Early Mormon Documents, vol. 2), there is no reason to rely on a thirdhand account.³⁵

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1456&index=16

And Morris in another essay here:

Quote

Again, Vogel writes, “I, too, want to understand Smith on his own terms, but I would like to be able to explain him” (p. xv). Now we are really getting to the heart of the matter. Certainly, historians have every right to use source criticism to explain and interpret things. In this instance, however, Vogel does not intend to “explain” Joseph Smith by drawing on the primary documents. Instead, he intends to explain Joseph Smith based on a nonhistorical standard—that is, his own private belief that, in the words of Sterling McMurrin, “you don’t get books from angels and translate them by miracles.”⁵⁰

Vogel has thus stepped outside of historical methodology (and, as far as I’m concerned, abandoned the principles espoused in Early Mormon Documents) to take up what is essentially a religious (or antireligious) position. He has failed to see that understanding Joseph Smith “on his own terms” and denying that Joseph had authentic religious experiences are mutually contradictory goals. Since Vogel does not believe in the supernatural, he can only explain Joseph Smith by contradicting what Joseph himself says in the primary documents (such as his 1832 history). This results in a puzzling irony: Vogel, who took such care in researching and compiling the primary documents, has taken an adversarial position toward those same documents, where he has to discount them or ignore them in order to make his case for atheism.

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1446&index=16

And from the same essay,

Quote

The night of 21–22 September 1823 was undoubtedly a crucial night in Joseph Smith’s life, perhaps more crucial than any other. It would therefore seem like a biographer’s dream that Joseph left such extensive firsthand accounts (totaling more than 1,500 words) of the experience. The natural temptation would be to quote too much from Joseph, as well as quoting from such secondhand sources as Lucy Mack, William, and Katharine Smith and Oliver Cowdery. If the biographer were not careful, he could lose his narrative (and distract the reader) in a long series of quotations. For the judicious author, however, Joseph’s accounts offer a gold mine (no pun intended) of memorable details.

So how do Vogel and Bushman deal with these firsthand accounts? Vogel quotes exactly twenty-nine words (about Joseph praying for forgiveness) and says virtually nothing about Moroni and nothing at all about his three different visits. The more one thinks about this, the more incredible it seems: Vogel, a master of the sources, has written a book of over 700 pages about a man who claimed to converse with heavenly messengers, and he essentially bypasses that man’s firsthand and detailed account about what an angel looked like and what he said. More than anything else, this illustrates just how much Vogel’s “bias” (more properly, his making his own religious beliefs—actually antireligious beliefs—the overarching and controlling bias of his “history”) has destroyed his ability to tell the story by drawing from the sources. How can the reader possibly understand Joseph Smith (or trust Vogel, for that matter) when Vogel refuses to let Joseph speak for himself?⁷⁴

Not surprisingly, Bushman quotes from Joseph Smith at length, just as Robert Remini does.⁷⁵

As if it is not enough to ignore Joseph Smith’s accounts, Vogel presumes to do Joseph’s speaking for him. As Andrew and Dawson Hedges say, “Vogel takes it upon himself to tell us what really happened that night—indeed, what young Joseph was actually thinking over the course of that night and the following day, whatever he or his mother might later say.”⁷⁶ Vogel has once again put himself in an adversarial relationship with the sources, trying to convince us that something else happened. But rather than reaching these conclusions through source criticism, Vogel deduces them based on his idea of what must have happened.

Worth reading closely, I think.  And a better metaphor than "throwing under a bus" would be "putting under a microscope", that is, playing close attention rather than reckless disposal.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm a little late to this thread, but I'm intrigued by the question premise of this discussion.  

I'm wondering why Dan's argument limits this discussion to a specific set of beliefs about the BoM.  I think any time we limit the beliefs we have about something, with an unwillingness to consider new information as it comes to us, we essentially limit God in the process.  Why is belief in the BoM limited to a belief that Joseph must have been operating within a particular set of rules.  

 

I, of course, cannot speak for Daniel Peterson, but it strikes me as prudent and logically economical that he focused his remarks on the authenticity and truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, for, as has often been pointed out, pretty much all of Mormonism hangs on that. When the Prophet Joseph Smith "told the brethren that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion," I believe he used that phrase advisedly. Take out the Book of Mormon (or fatally discredit it) and the whole structure collapses; uphold and sustain it, and the structure remains in place, like an arch with its keystone.

The rest of your post gets back to the matter of belief in a fictional Book of Mormon. The logical incoherence of such a notion has already been pointed out elsewhere (Smac97, in particular, has done it very well) so I see no need to rehash that debate here.

 

Edited August 29, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Inadvertent double post.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

44 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I suggest you read Alan Goff's article in Interpreter quoted by Kevin, above.   Yes there are many Mormon theorists who also unfortunately are positivists or who ignore the issue entirely.  There have been famous debates between Mormon theorists advocating positivism without even being aware that they were.

I always find it curious when Mormons advocate positivism because without knowing it, they are advocating that revelations and visions cannot possibly be "true".  Belief in general that "truth vs error" can be clearly established, is positivism.

Goff's article is long and somewhat technical but it is right on the money.  It could be shorter but he nails it.

I'll take a look at it, and appreciate the link.  I still don't think this can justify dismissing Vogel's approach as sophomoric when he's been so widely respected by so many believing Mormon historians.  

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here's the slide:

I think Dr. Peterson has covered pretty much all of the logical alternative explanations for the Plates.  Here's my take of the options:

1. Joseph had no plates, and his claims to the contrary can be attributed to him being a cynical (i.e., intentional, mendacious) fraud (corresponds to DCP's point A.1.a);
2. Joseph had no plates, and his claims to the contrary can be attributed to him being a pious (i.e., well-intentioned, misguided-but-sincere) fraud (corresponds to DCP's point A.1.b);
3. Joseph had no plates, and his claims to the contrary can be attributed to him being deluded (i.e., mental handicap/ illness, drug- or trauma-induced brain injury, etc.) (corresponds to DCP's point A.2);
4. Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he fabricated them as part of being a cynical (i.e., intentional, mendacious) fraud (corresponds to DCP's point B.1.a);
5. Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he fabricated them as part of being a pious (i.e., well-intentioned, misguided-but-sincere) fraud (corresponds to DCP's point B.1.b);
6. Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he fabricated them as part of being deluded (i.e., mental handicap/ illness, drug- or trauma-induced brain injury, etc.) (no corresponding point in DCP's slide);
7. Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he received them from a contemporary (or a group of contemporaries) who fabricated them (corresponds to DCP's point B.2.a);
8. Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he received them from a non-contemporary (or a group of non-contemporaries) who fabricated them (corresponds to DCP's point B.2.b).

I think the weight of the historical evidence at hand makes options 4-8 substantially more likely than options 1-3.  There were simply too many people who saw the plates.  

Of the remaining options, I think insanity/mental illness (# 6 above) does not seem warranted.  Accusations of mental illness are essentially devoid of evidence.

I also think the remaining "cynical fraud" theory (#4) is not plausible.  Joseph's personal writings give no hint whatsoever to such motives.  (As Dr. Peterson noted: "One of the places you run into issues is with Joseph Smith’s writings, which are now being published, the personal writings of Joseph Smith, the Joseph Smith Papers. If Joseph Smith is not sincere, then I can’t judge sincerity in another human being.")

So that would leave essentially three options, namely, #5, #7 and #8:

• Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he fabricated them as part of being a pious (i.e., well-intentioned, misguided-but-sincere) fraud (I think the "Inspired Fiction" theory would need to be categorized here);
• Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he received them from a contemporary (or a group of contemporaries) who fabricated them (corresponds to DCP's point B.2.a);
• Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he received them from a non-contemporary (or a group of non-contemporaries) who fabricated them (corresponds to DCP's point B.2.b).

I think there are some rather substantial flaws in these, as outlined in DCP's remarks.

So the 9th option comes into play: Joseph had actual, physical, authentically ancient, plates because he received them from a non-contemporary, a resurrected being named Moroni, who led Joseph to where the plates had been buried centuries before.

Thanks,

-Smac

Your expansion of Dr. Peterson's slide helps.  Thanks.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

But that's not what Scott said.  Rather, he said this:

I think this is a valid point. If a critic of The Book of Mormon is unable and/or unwilling to provide an alternative theory for the origin of the text, that is, for me, a significant point.  It rather strongly suggests that the critic, as invested as he is in debunking the LDS Church's explanation of The Book of Mormon, is nevertheless incapable of surveying the historical record and the evidence pertaining to The Book of Mormon and providing a coherent counter-theory.

So with respect, I will have to disagree with you.  The Church has presented a theory about the origins of The Book of Mormon.   In contrast, we have countervailing views from people who have rejected the Church's teachings about the origins of The Book of Mormon.  That is certainly their prerogative.  But at that point they are the ones making a claim.  They are the ones asserting that the Church's teachings about the origins of the book are factually false.  They are the ones making assertions about naturalistic or quasi-religious-but-still-rejecting-the-Church's-position explanations for The Book of Mormon.  The "Inspired Fiction" theory is an example of such countervailing explanations for the existence and content of the text, as is the Spaulding-Rigdon Theory (and other "multiple author" theories), the "Joseph Smith as the sole author" theory, the"View of the Hebrews" theory, Grant Palmer's "The Golden Pot" theory,  "The Late War" theory, and so on.

You are proposing that critics of The Book of Mormon are not obligated to substantiate their naturalistic theories as to the book's origins, and that we should instead accept those theories . . . on what basis?  Faith?

I'm not sure that's an accurate statement.  What we have is a very controversial claim (or series of claims): That God appeared to Joseph Smith, that God sent angelic messengers to Joseph Smith, that one of these gave instructions to Joseph about there being "a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang," that Joseph eventually uncovered and obtained possession of this record, that this record was an actual, physical object, that it was an ancient historical record, and that Joseph Smith translated the book through miraculous means, "by the gift and power of God."  The Church has presented "evidence" of these claims, some of which is inherently subjective (Moroni 10:3-5), but some of which is, to some extent, subject to empirical scrutiny (the testimonies of the Witnesses, the complexity of the plates, the brief period during which it was written relative to Joseph Smith's lack of education, the presence in the text of various markers of antiquity, and so on).

Now, I concede that the Church's position on this issue is not a slam dunk.  Reasonable minds can disagree about the origins of The Book of Mormon.  But that's where "reason" comes into play.  Explanation.  Assessment of the evidence.  The Church and its defenders have spent many years presenting plausible explanations for the text and its complexities.  In contrast, the critics have pretty much embarrassed themselves in their assessment of the evidence.   Try as they might, critics and dissidents simply cannot formulate a coherent alternative explanation for where the text came from.  Joseph Smith could not have done it.  Conspiracy theories about Joseph Smith collaborating with unknown others don't work, either.  It is very interesting to me that we are coming up on 200 years of critical scrutiny of The Book of Mormon, and yet nobody has been able to present a coherent explanation that accounts for the existence of the text, the complexity and internal consistency of the narrative, the extremely short time period in which it was "written," the textual evidences that were simply unknown/unknowable to Joseph Smith and his fellows (Nahom/Bountiful is an excellent example of this), the reality of the Gold Plates and the testimony of the witnesses, and so on.

Dan Peterson makes a valid point:

I guess technically you are ultimately correct.  There is no "obligation" or "responsibility" for folks advocating a naturalistic explanation for the text to actually defend or explain their position.  We are all here voluntarily.  This is just an online message board.  We are free to participate as much or as little as we like.  

But at the end of the day, critics who affirmatively insist on a naturalistic explanation for The Book or Mormon, but who feel no need to actually marshal evidence and argument to substantiate that position, are just embarrassing themselves.  Ironically, these folks - who I think would like to think of themselves as being open-minded, rational, etc., are engaging in conduct that is inherently closed-minded and irrational.  To again quote Dan Peterson:

Dale Morgan is the standard-bearer for the types of critics described by Cinepro.  Not very inspiring, he.

Back to you:

But we're talking about two different things.  I don't think Scott has said that the Church's position on The Book of Mormon is privileged, that it should be immune from "criticism and attacks."

Rather, I think he is saying that the position of the critics is mighty weak tea.  You seem to be buying into Dale Morgan's line of "reasoning," such as it is.  "I will look everywhere for explanations except to the ONE explanation that is the position of the church."

Well, as you like.  But at least the Mormons are taking the field.  At least they are engaging in assessment of the evidence and defending their position based on it.  Folks like you, on the other hand, are throwing their hands up in the air and insisting that the origins of the text "remain unknown."  

What kind of assessment of the evidence is that?

This is a marvelously false characterization of the LDS position on The Book of Mormon.  None of us believe we have all the answers.  None of us have postulated that our beliefs about The Book of Mormon constitute a "theory" that is "100% logical and complete."  This is simply a Straw Man argument ("{an} attempt to 'prove' an argument by overstating, exaggerating, or over-simplifying the arguments of the opposing side").

In the end, I think Dan Peterson's assessment merits repetition (emphasis added):

Well said!

Thanks,

-Smac

Been mulling over in my mind this past weekend how best to approach a response to cinepro's post. You have done it admirably. I can't improve on it. Bravo!

 

[mfbukowski]

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'll take a look at it, and appreciate the link.  I still don't think this can justify dismissing Vogel's approach as sophomoric when he's been so widely respected by so many believing Mormon historians.  

This is a quote from the Goff piece quoted upthread by Kevin- the quote can be found around page 161 of the article

I can guarantee that the validity of Goff's points depend on your understanding of philosophy.  That is also true of Mormon historians, and I can guarantee that if they graduated from BYU in the 50's or 60's they have no understanding of postmodernism at all.  Postmodernism is still seen as "relativism" by most Mormons who are ignorant that it is the only way to rationally justify belief in what positivists would regard as "spirituality"

Quote

Empirical evidence is never immaculate perception; it comes trailing clouds of concepts. Empiricism is a theory of reality and of knowledge conjoined. “No empirical activity is possible without a theory (or at least elaborate presuppositions) behind it, even if these remain implicit, perhaps unconscious. All historians have ideas already in their minds when they study primary materials—models of human behavior, established chronologies, assumptions about responsibility, notions of identity, and so on. Of course, some are convinced that they are merely gathering facts, looking at sources with a totally open mind and only recording what is there, yet they are simply wrong to believe this.”119 Vogel’s positivism and naturalism120 [Page 165]don’t permit divine messengers to mingle with humans, so even when Martin Harris and David Whitmer assert physical objects (that is, potential empirical observations) as part of their divine manifestation, Vogel raises logical fallacies to undermine the physicality of the vision. “Harris’s and Whitmer’s accounts have common elements: the angel, the table, the plates and other objects, the angel speaking, the voice of God. Yet, one does not know if the two men saw the same angel, the same table, and the same plates. One does not know if they heard the same voices or the same words or if their experiences lasted the same length of time.”121 The logical fallacy here is an appeal to silence or an appeal to ignorance: if we don’t know that something didn’t happen, we can make the logical inference that it did. If we don’t know that Harry Truman isn’t a communist, then we can conclude that he is. You can’t prove that a vast conspiracy didn’t combine to kill Martin Luther King, so it is logical to assert that one did. Since Vogel lives several time zones ahead of me, we don’t know that the same sun that sets in his sky also sets in my sky. We don’t know that when Vogel refers to the current President of the United States, he is referring to the same person as when I use the same phrase. We don’t know that when my daughter called a few days ago on Skype, she is the same person who left in June for the Dominican Republic, so we can assume that the recent caller was an imposter. This assertion by the positivist Vogel is more worthy of the idealist George Berkeley than by an intellectual descendent of Auguste Comte. Such radical skepticism can be raised hypothetically, but Vogel must be very selective in his use of such doubt, for if he applied it to his own empirical observations, his theory of knowledge would be radically undermined, because he[Page 166]constantly makes causal and explanatory connections that we don’t know are true, so we can therefore conclude that they are false. Vogel applies his extreme skepticism so selectively that it is easy to discern the ideological content behind it. He never subjects his own assertions to such radical doubt; he does it only when attempting to undermine the veracity of historical evidence he wants to discount.

I should note that the attitude represented here is the attitude I have tried to present here since I first arrived, and is also presented in my Rorty quote below.

I love Goff's phrase "immaculate perception" to illustrate the folly of positivism, the idea that there can be such a thing as "direct observation of reality as it is"

THAT is Vogel's problem.  And to top it off, he restricts even THAT to his own observations.  If they are not "Vogel Empiricism" they do not count.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

 

I'm pretty new to the whole world of Mormon Studies (a little more than 3 years of exposure).  I have been reading a lot of authors and essays, and I find both of your comments about Vogel to be surprising.  From what I've read about his scholarship, he's well respected in Mormon history circles, and his research is some of the best research out there on primary sources.  I know that he's not a believer, but I've found his approach to be pretty even handed on many subjects.  I'm disappointed to hear his work being thrown under the bus here.

To Kevin, for Vogel's work on the witnesses, I've found his perspectives to be asking important questions that I haven't found good responses to in the apologetic community. 

Neither one of them like Vogel because he is tough to deal with.  So trashing him as sophomoric, etc on a message board like this is simply easier than dealing with what he has to say.

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think this is a valid point. If a critic of The Book of Mormon is unable and/or unwilling to provide an alternative theory for the origin of the text, that is, for me, a significant point.  It rather strongly suggests that the critic, as invested as he is in debunking the LDS Church's explanation of The Book of Mormon, is nevertheless incapable of surveying the historical record and the evidence pertaining to The Book of Mormon and providing a coherent counter-theory.

Obviously you can use whatever criterion you like to discount critics, but it defies logic to suggest that someone who doesn't believe in a theory must provide an alternate theory.  If you apply this reasoning to anything other than the claims of the LDS Church, it becomes obvious and simple to understand.

It's only when the conversation shifts to the LDS theories about the origin of The Book of Mormon that suddenly the supernatural theory becomes more "true" if the critics can't fully explain it otherwise.

It's also a little disingenuous because you aren't admitting one simple and obvious fact: a "natural" theory won't ever, ever be as good as one that accepts "supernatural" elements. 

It's impossible, because any natural theory, no matter how good, will always have at least one question that isn't known.  And the supernatural theory can always answer that question with "God did it."  So, by definition, if you are accepting theories that incorporate supernatural elements, then it isn't a question of whether or not there will ever be a natural theory that is good enough.  Because there can't be.  There will always be a point where you get to the question that isn't answered ("What about this?") to which the natural theory has to respond "I don't know."

But the supernatural theory can always answer with "God did it", which is a 100% correct and comprehensive explanation according to the theory.

So the surprising thing isn't that people who accept supernatural theories find the natural theories lacking.  The surprising thing is that they pretend it could ever be any different. 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Neither one of them like Vogel because he is tough to deal with.  So trashing him as sophomoric, etc on a message board like this is simply easier than dealing with what he has to say.

Eh? Tough to deal with? Not "dealing with what he has to say"? It appears to me he has been dealt with quite handily here on this thread.

 

[Nevo]

51 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Morris published an important book on Cowdery.

This is news to me. Where can I see it? Nothing shows up on Amazon.

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

You might also find Larry Morris's work provides helpful perspectives.  Morris published an important book on Cowdery.

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1456&index=16

And Morris in another essay here:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1446&index=16

And from the same essay,

Worth reading closely, I think.  And a better metaphor than "throwing under a bus" would be "putting under a microscope", that is, playing close attention rather than reckless disposal.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

I believe I've read Morris's essay in a colleciton put in book form https://www.amazon.com/Oliver-Cowdery-Scribe-Elder-Witness-ebook/dp/0842526617/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1472493278&sr=1-3&keywords=oliver+cowdery  

I would like to check these things out again, and I think I heard somewhere that a Cowdery biography was being worked on, and I'm looking forward to it.  

The problem I have with dismissing Vogel is that he's widely respected by so many believing historians.  I personally find that much of what I'll label as the old school apologists (Peterson, Interpreter, Hamblin, Anderson crowd) I don't tend to follow as closely because I don't agree with their perspectives as frequently as some of the more progressive historians.  But that's not to say that these folks aren't producing good work that resonates with some people more than others.  I try not to characterize their work as reckless or sophomoric though. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Here's the slide:

I think Dr. Peterson has covered pretty much all of the logical alternative explanations for the Plates.  Here's my take of the options:

1. Joseph had no plates, and his claims to the contrary can be attributed to him being a cynical (i.e., intentional, mendacious) fraud (corresponds to DCP's point A.1.a);
2. Joseph had no plates, and his claims to the contrary can be attributed to him being a pious (i.e., well-intentioned, misguided-but-sincere) fraud (corresponds to DCP's point A.1.b);
3. Joseph had no plates, and his claims to the contrary can be attributed to him being deluded (i.e., mental handicap/ illness, drug- or trauma-induced brain injury, etc.) (corresponds to DCP's point A.2);
4. Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he fabricated them as part of being a cynical (i.e., intentional, mendacious) fraud (corresponds to DCP's point B.1.a);
5. Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he fabricated them as part of being a pious (i.e., well-intentioned, misguided-but-sincere) fraud (corresponds to DCP's point B.1.b);
6. Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he fabricated them as part of being deluded (i.e., mental handicap/ illness, drug- or trauma-induced brain injury, etc.) (no corresponding point in DCP's slide);
7. Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he received them from a contemporary (or a group of contemporaries) who fabricated them (corresponds to DCP's point B.2.a);
8. Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he received them from a non-contemporary (or a group of non-contemporaries) who fabricated them (corresponds to DCP's point B.2.b).

I think the weight of the historical evidence at hand makes options 4-8 substantially more likely than options 1-3.  There were simply too many people who saw the plates.  

Of the remaining options, I think insanity/mental illness (# 6 above) does not seem warranted.  Accusations of mental illness are essentially devoid of evidence.

I also think the remaining "cynical fraud" theory (#4) is not plausible.  Joseph's personal writings give no hint whatsoever to such motives.  (As Dr. Peterson noted: "One of the places you run into issues is with Joseph Smith’s writings, which are now being published, the personal writings of Joseph Smith, the Joseph Smith Papers. If Joseph Smith is not sincere, then I can’t judge sincerity in another human being.")

So that would leave essentially three options, namely, #5, #7 and #8:

• Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he fabricated them as part of being a pious (i.e., well-intentioned, misguided-but-sincere) fraud (I think the "Inspired Fiction" theory would need to be categorized here);
• Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he received them from a contemporary (or a group of contemporaries) who fabricated them (corresponds to DCP's point B.2.a);
• Joseph had actual, physical - but fraudulent - plates because he received them from a non-contemporary (or a group of non-contemporaries) who fabricated them (corresponds to DCP's point B.2.b).

I think there are some rather substantial flaws in these, as outlined in DCP's remarks.

So the 9th option comes into play: Joseph had actual, physical, authentically ancient, plates because he received them from a non-contemporary, a resurrected being named Moroni, who led Joseph to where the plates had been buried centuries before.

Thanks,

-Smac

Been wondering whether some of the respondents on this thread had actually bothered to click on the link, read Dan's presentation, or at least look at his PowerPoint.

It seems to me he pretty much covers the waterfront with categories of possible objections to/criticisms of the Book of Mormon.

[Kevin Christensen]

4 minutes ago, Nevo said:

This is news to me. Where can I see it? Nothing shows up on Amazon.

I was thinking of this one:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/book/oliver-cowdery-scribe-elder-witness/

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[hope_for_things]

55 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I, of course, cannot speak for Daniel Peterson, but it strikes me as prudent that he limited his remarks to the authenticity and truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, for, as has often been pointed out, pretty much all of Mormonism hangs on that. When the Prophet Joseph Smith "told the brethren that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion," I believe he used that phrase advisedly. Take out the Book of Mormon (or fatally discredit it) and the whole structure collapses.

The rest of your post gets back to the matter of belief in a fictional Book of Mormon. The logical incoherence of such a notion has already been pointed out elsewhere (Smac97, in particular, has done it very well) so I see no need to rehash that debate here.

 

Its a matter of adjusting your position based on new information, which is something we should all have a lot of practice at.  We are very limited in our ability to comprehend the world around us.  As I've learned new information about the world that Joseph lived in and the influencing elements on his life, I've adjusted my view of what influenced his religious productions including the BoM.  

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its a matter of adjusting your position based on new information, which is something we should all have a lot of practice at.  We are very limited in our ability to comprehend the world around us.  As I've learned new information about the world that Joseph lived in and the influencing elements on his life, I've adjusted my view of what influenced his religious productions including the BoM.  

It doesn't matter how much new information emerges. If the Book of Mormon turned out to be fictional, it would, quite simply, be a fraud and not worthy of basing one's religious faith on it.

Of course, I hasten to add that the Book of Mormon is not fictional and, therefore, is not a fraud.

 

[cinepro]

You are proposing that critics of The Book of Mormon are not obligated to substantiate their naturalistic theories as to the book's origins, and that we should instead accept those theories . . . on what basis?  Faith?

Again, I can't see how someone operates in the modern world with such thinking. 

I can understand saying such things in the context of The Book of Mormon (again, that's what "special pleading" is), but at some point it just becomes absurd.

As I said earlier, there are an infinite number of things I can't explain.

Take, for example, Uri Gellar.  The man claims to be able to perform amazing feats using only his mind.  And honestly, I would consider the ability to bend a physical object, like a spoon, using only the energy of your mind as being far more amazing and miraculous than producing a book like The Book of Mormon.

But the problem is, I can't explain it better with a naturalistic theory.  Sure, I can say "he's doing it using his hands", but that's the same thing as saying "Joseph Smith did it himself."  It's just a naturalistic theory that doesn't account for the fact that Uri isn't seen bending it with his hands (just as Joseph wasn't seen doing it himself). 

So according to the logic in this thread, I cannot produce a better naturalistic theory that explains Uri's abilities, therefore I am logically compelled to believe that he is doing it with "supernatural" powers.  It isn't enough for me to say "I don't know how he did it, but I still don't believe a guy can bend spoons with his mind until I see more (and better) evidence." 

No, I am supposed to say "Since I can't fully explain how Uri Gellar does it, I must accept that he is bending spoons with his mind energy."

If this is the level of thinking that is being invoked to prop up The Book of Mormon, than it's a big (and disappointing) step back for defenders of the book. 

[hope_for_things]

32 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

This is a quote from the Goff piece quoted upthread by Kevin- the quote can be found around page 161 of the article

I can guarantee that the validity of Goff's points depend on your understanding of philosophy.  That is also true of Mormon historians, and I can guarantee that if they graduated from BYU in the 50's or 60's they have no understanding of postmodernism at all.  Postmodernism is still seen as "relativism" by most Mormons who are ignorant that it is the only way to rationally justify belief in what positivists would regard as "spirituality"

I should note that the attitude represented here is the attitude I have tried to present here since I first arrived, and is also presented in my Rorty quote below.

I love Goff's phrase "immaculate perception" to illustrate the folly of positivism, the idea that there can be such a thing as "direct observation of reality as it is"

THAT is Vogel's problem.  And to top it off, he restricts even THAT to his own observations.  If they are not "Vogel Empiricism" they do not count.

Without knowing all the background of your debates with Vogel or your critiques of Mormon historians, I think you're missing an important point that I'm making about the respect that Vogel's work has received by many many credible scholars.  

Assuming for a moment that you are correct about Vogel not understanding the your philosophical arguments, is it possible that you may also not understand the historical arguments that Vogel has presented?  It seems to me that your disagreements might be due to the differences in disciplines, more than anything else.

I'm not trained in philosophy or in history, but I can see that when a highly respected person who's won many awards and who's works are frequently sited by those in Mormon historical disciplines is being unfairly dismissed, and I don't find that to be credible.    

[churchistrue]

I'm LDS and love the BOM and accept it as scripture, though I don't see it as a translation of an ancient record, nor do I think an angel gave Joseph gold plates.  So, I don't like taking the critic side in this throwdown to the critics.  But, why isn't it this simple?

 

1. If the LDS traditional narrative were true, it would be unique in the history of man.  Right?  Not just unique but really, really unique.  In terms of angel delivering ancient plates, translating by the power of God, etc.

2. Therefore, the threshold for acceptability in terms of how likely something could be can be pretty low, and still be favorable in terms of an "Occam's Razor" type of approach as an alternative to #1.

3. Choose your favorite critical argument.  Compared to all the unlikely, implausible actual events in world history, how does it compare?  Way more unlikely/implausible?  Go ahead and toss it.   In line with other unlikely, implausible events that have actually occurred?  Go ahead and accept it as an Occam's Razor alternative to the argument #1 which has no actual comparable in world history.  ie example that Joseph conspired with someone.  Would this go down as the most unlikely conspiracy in human history?  Go ahead and toss it out.  If not, it meets the threshold.  Joseph made it up himself.  Would it go down as the most unlikely case in human history of an uneducated person creating something impressive?  If so, toss it.  If not, go ahead and allow it.