In part 2 of this multi-part interview with Dr. Richard Bushman, the world’s foremost scholar on Joseph Smith and early Mormonism and author of Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, we tackle 4 main topics. First, brother Bushman provides a high level review of the major Joseph Smith biographies that preceded Rough Stone Rolling, including Fawn Brodie’s “No man knows my history.” Next, brother Bushman discusses the art of writing history, and the challenges involved in trying to arrive at “the facts” and “the truth” for both historians, and readers of history. Finally, we discuss in depth the first 2 of our top 10 tough Joseph Smith issues: 1) The multiple and somewhat varying accounts of Joseph Smith’s first vision story, and 2) Joseph Smith’s involvement in folk magic and treasure digging.
The slight audio “buzz” from the previous interview continues on this one, with an additional static sound that lasts for about 2 minutes at the beginning of the interview. Please bear with us–things will get better again (hopefully) now that Dr. Bushman is feeling better.
To access this interview, subscribe via iTunes, or click here to listen to the audio directly.
Blake,
I wanted to ask you a question based on this statement:
“In fact, my DNA arguments are aimed at this kind of argument that DNA is an absolute disproof of the Book of Mormon. It isn’t. I probably could not argue for (b) and I know I can’t argue for (a) in the face of DNA evidence; but I believe there is a good case to be made for (c) and I am rather certain that I have established (d)”
I am wondering how limited the statement, “I probably could not argue for (b) … in the face of DNA evidence” is. [b = “I can show that Mormonism is probable”]
Do you mean that you believe that when placing DNA associated things on the scale, you cannot argue for b with DNA associated things?
Or do you mean that DNA evidence while not making BOM historicity impossible or even implausible does such damage that when ALL things are weighed you would not argue that Mormonism is “probable.”
I personally would agree with the first, DNA evidence does not make Mormonism more likely to be true, but I would not agree with the second. In fact, I think the responses to DNA issues have been sufficient that the hemispheric geography model should generally die (which it did in many circles long before) but the local geography model is largely unfazed.
As I hinted at, I generally believe this to be true. If there is a God, then Mormonism is probably from God, is probably constituted with greater truth and less error than other religions.
I generally believe that the evidence suggests that it is most likely that there is a God, but I am less well versed in this discussion than I am in the comparison of various problems and evidences within different theistic structures.
If I include in the “evidence” category those things I see when I open my own “mailbox” then I find the existence of God as virtually proven. These are things that exist only within me and my life. Few of them have any manifestation (at least toward the proof of God) outside of my internal experience. I tell people that for me to be an atheist, God would need to command me and this of course is logically impossible.
Anyway, I was interested in what you meant by the words I captured above and in what you think about the probability of Mormonism, Theism, and ….
Charity, TOm
You start the above by saying that the argument isn’t at all to establish God’s existence and finish with saying that it shows how God’s existence is possible…which appears to me like an attempt to establish Gods existence even if you’ve only established that it’s possible.
That seems rather circular to me Blake and a waste of time because but at the end of day what have you really established? That God’s existence is possible? What a waste of energy, because anything is possible. It’s possible that people live on Jupiter but it’s not very likely, given the evidence. And didn’t need to go in circles to arrive at that conclusion.
Jeff: “Blake, I don’t see how that comment needs to be part of your response. It feels to me like another put down, where you’re attempting to imply your superiority over me. Please don’t do that anymore unless it’s part of your argument. I think you can make your point just as well without the condescending remarks. I’m trying to be as polite and nice as I can in asking you this.”
Jeff, I pointed out the difference to suggest that I wouldn’t expect you to address the issue as a philosopher in the technical manner that I do. I a sense I was suggesting there was nothing wrong with the way you approached it. From perspective it seems that you are quick to take offense.
You start the above by saying that the argument isn’t at all to establish God’s existence and finish with saying that it shows how God’s existence is possible…which appears to me like an attempt to establish Gods existence even if you’ve only established that it’s possible.
Jeff: “That seems rather circular to me Blake and a waste of time because but at the end of day what have you really established? That God’s existence is possible? What a waste of energy, because anything is possible. It’s possible that people live on Jupiter but it’s not very likely, given the evidence. And didn’t need to go in circles to arrive at that conclusion.”
Jeff, the point is simply a logical one. The argument that designed to show that God cannot exist if there is evil is not logically valid. That’s what it shows. I agree that it doesn’t establish anything except that an argument used to disprove God’s existence isn’t a valid argument — but that is valuable to the person who wonders if it is possible for God to exist if there is evil. So you agree that God’s existence is possible. So I assume you wouldn’t make the logical argument in question because you agree it isn’t valid — that’s all.
Tom: What I meant is that I can argue that the existence of Nephites is plausible based solely on theDNA evidence; however, I don’t think that DNA evidence makes the existence of Nephites probable. I believe that there is other evidence that does that — just not DNA evidence.
Jake: We have discussed the issues related to God’s foreknowledge and free will ad nauseum here: http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2007/01/hermeneutical-assumptions-and-open-theism/319/#more-319
You might want to join that discussion.
Jeff,
If I understand correctly, one of the foundational rules in philosophy/logic is the law on non-contradiction. If a particular set of statements result in a violation of the law of non-contradiction, then the philosopher is bound to refine or reject one or many of the statements. The non-theistic philosopher for many years has put forth the “problem of evil” as evidence that God could not exist. The responses to this problem (particularly Plantinga’s if I understand correctly) have shown that the logical problem of evil does not disprove the existence of an omnibenevolent God (BTW, I believe Plantinga compromises God’s omnipotence very slightly in doing this which I consider fine, but most fundamentalist would reject).
The problem of evil is present by the atheist philosopher as a proof that God does not exist. The response is to show how this position was not proven.
There are a number of philosophical arguments designed to show that God does exist. The universe is ordered, therefore God as one who orders exists. If there is no explanation as to how an ordered universe could exist outside of God’s interference, then it would be proven that God exists. If someone can offer any reason to believe that an ordered universe can exist without God, then this would respond to the absolute argument.
There are dozens of arguments within science and philosophy designed to show that God exists. There are dozens of responses that postulate things. Things like multi-verses or a GPC restrictor respond to the “fine-tuning” argument.
It is my opinion that no anti-theist argument has proven God does not exist. No anti-Mormon argument has proven God is not at the head of Mormonism. It is also my opinion that no pro-theist argument has proven God exists and no pro-Mormon argument has proven God is at the head of Mormonism.
I see within critics of the church a desire to focus on those areas that critics offer to show that Mormonism could not have God at its head. These issues are self selected for their problematic nature concern Mormon truth claims. It seems quite reasonable that the weight of these things and the responses offered by apologist would make Mormonism unlikely. But it is not fair to spend all of ones time focusing on that which is problematic if one wants to assess the truth claims of Mormonism.
Some apologists (not really FARMS btw) seem to focus almost exclusively upon areas that apologists offer to show that Mormonism absolutely has God at its head. As critics poke holes in these absolute positions by offering theories about tin plates and Dartmouth library, the apologist will likely still think that the truth claims of Mormonism are much more likely than the offered responses.
To get a full picture all of these things need to be assessed.
Alternatively, one can become less concerned with the claims of True and False and just view Mormonism as a process for growth and development, but those that do this tend to be less vocal than those who see whitish grays and blackish grays as important.
Btw, let me just repeat this. I am an engineer not a philosopher, but it seems to me that this little distinction is pretty important for what you are questioning.
“(a) I can show Mormonism is true; (b) I can show that Mormonism is probable; (c) I can show that Mormonism is plausible; (d) I can show that Mormonism is possibly true. FARMS writers most often aim for (c), they sometimes argue either (d) or (b), but they have never, to my knowledge, argued for (a).”
Also the a* – d* are important. (a*) I can show Mormonism is false. (d*) I can show Mormonism is possible false.
I do not think anyone has succeeded at a* or a.
I think both critics and LDS apologists resort to d* or d on occasion.
Charity, TOm
Blake said:
What I meant is that I can argue that the existence of Nephites is plausible based solely on theDNA evidence; however, I don’t think that DNA evidence makes the existence of Nephites probable. I believe that there is other evidence that does that — just not DNA evidence.
I say:
That is what I would have thought your position was. That is my position as well.
I think there are few issues self selected by critics that after they are addressed result in, “Mormonism is probably true.” I don’t expect critics to choose issues like this. However, things like “land of Jerusalem is not correct,” “no rivers in Arabia,” and “The Bible says man cannot become gods,” are examples of were I think the critics have offered things that ultimately do (or will eventually) become “Mormonism is probably true.”
Charity, TOm
Tom, thank you for elaborating further on the subject of logical arguments. And thank you for being respectful as well. I’ll try to do the same.
My guess is that you meant to say, “as evidence that God exists,” not “proof.” I don’t know of any atheist worth his salt who would claim that one can prove that God does not exist because – and I think this comes from formal logic – you can’t prove a negative. In an early post I pointed out how one can’t prove that people don’t live on Jupiter because even if I go there and look around and not find anyone I could always miss a spot or later discover that they do in fact live there but in a normally invisible state. One can only prove that they do exist by going there and discovering them. I’m sure I’m telling you something you already know but are maybe overlooking if I understand correctly what you’re saying.
Likewise, I can’t prove that God does not exist and we have yet to prove that he does exist. All we have is the evidence. My assessment of the evidence leads me to conclude that God’s existence is about as unlikely as the likelihood that people live on Jupiter…but someday I might be proven wrong. However, in all areas of my life where I’ve learned that relying on evidence, not possibilities, serves me best, I am feeling pretty confident that the evidence, or lack thereof hasn’t mislead me in my conclusion.
I tend to be a practical person and that might be why I ended up in the field I’m in, or maybe because the field I’m in has taught me to base important decisions more on evidence and less on “possibilities” I’ve been turned me into a more practical person. I’m not sure which is actually the case. At any rate, in terms of understanding what is and is not true I see little practical value in Blake’s logical exercise because, first he starts with the possibility that God exists, makes an assertion that I think is easy to disprove (that God does not exist) and ends up back at the beginning: Maybe God exists. It seems to me to be a good exercise in a classroom on logic but other than that I see no value in the exercise other than perhaps theatrical value. Blake in your field I can see where theatrical value is important, maybe even more important that evidence when your task is to try to convince a jury. In my field theatrics has no value – in fact it get in the way in discussions where the task is to arrive at the TRUE reason a product didn’t perform as expected. In areas where what really did or did not happen or what is or is not true are important theatrics have no place.
Blake, you point out, for instance, how you can demonstrate that Mormonism could possibly be true (or something to that effect). With all due respect, I see little practical value in that for the same reason I see little value in writing a paper that shows that people live on Jupiter could possibly be true..
Unfortunately, to a great extent, many Mormons look to FARMS for rebuttals to some of the information they are finding on the internet. Because their rebuttals are in my opinion (and I think in the opinion of non-Mormon scholars in general who even care to take a look) are heavy on theatrics and light on evidence, and in the end only demonstrates what we knew to begging with. I say, “unfortunately” because many people who go to FARMS for answers can’t tell the difference between theatrics (and personal attacks) and real evidence. It might fool some people but I’ve heard where it turns a lot of people off, and away, and they leave.
Jeff,
As I mentioned, I am an engineer. I think generally theatrics do not get me too far. I am not sure how I would take it where you to suggest to me that as a lawyer theatrics were a mainstay of my profession, but perhaps that will not be viewed as less than benign.
It is not about theatrics.
The BOM detractors who excuse the witnesses of the BOM have a weak case. BOM believers win the battle of the witnesses.
The BOM detractors who excuse the NHM location in the BOM have a weak case. BOM believers win the battle of NHM.
Non-theists who engage Van Til’s argument for the presumption of logic being a foundation of any argumentation and this entailing theism lose (IMO). He says, “Atheist presupposes theism.”
Non-theists who explain the fine tuning argument by appealing to multi-verses or some as yet to be found GPC (three fundamental constants in physics) restrictor component lose.
Non-theists who try to explain the existence of non-replicating DNA, lose. One of the preeminent atheist philosophers of the 20th and 21st century became a theist because the data associated with self-replicating DNA led him there (Anthony Flew).
When I say “lose” I mean that concerning these areas only, the Mormon or Theist has the probable explanation. The anti-Mormon or the Atheist has the weaker, “It could be untrue” position. This is all data and review of facts and none theatrics.
FARMS spends most of its time arguing against criticisms. When FARMS argues for evidence, they tend to present a case that while occasionally (rarely) addressed by critics is not reversed in its strength. Critics who bother to enter the debate say, “perhaps this singular reference to ‘spiritual eyes’ should eclipse all the other concrete descriptions of seeing and feeling plates.” What a weak argument.
Now if we include the BOA and the apologetic response to such things on the scale, it moves in the other direction.
I am suggesting that all of this must be weighed. You are welcome to tell me that the BOA is a mess. I agree. But the BOM is so evidently more than can be explained by any fraud theory that the BOA rides on its coattails. If there was ever something that couldn’t possibly be true, then all the strength of the BOM might not matter, but I have not found such a thing.
Finally, I am quite certain that I have no idea why this is, but I know God. He loves me. I have spent some time exploring the human psyche and why it might trick me, but if it is only my “God gene,” I am quite unable to overcome its hold upon me. I would enjoy being one of the most capable and powerful creatures in the universe. I like be a human and see no need to believe that in reality God is so much greater than I am. But when God communicates to me things that I never would have supposed, it seems clear to me that God is there and He isn’t just part of my psyche. In the end this is why I could not cease to be a theist. But my Mormonism was quite secure for many years before God felt the need to communicate to me that I should be a LDS. For whatever reason, as I weigh data, Mormonism just makes more sense of the data than other theistic structures. But of course this is the data that include horses and Matthew’s misuse of the Old Testament.
I can respect your view that atheism and exMormonism is the best view of the data. I do not believe you have engaged the scientific and philosophic reasons for theism which I think should leave the atheist constantly looking for the certainty theists claim, but I could be wrong. Some do and are still atheists. I am still convinced that your appeal to “theatrics” means that you have missed the point of the responses to the problem of evil (and by analogy missed the point of most of what FARMS does).
Charity, TOm
Tom, unless I’m mistaken I believe I said I was referring to Blake when I was talking about theatrics and their value in the legal profession. I agree with you that theatrics won’t get an engineer very far.
Jeff: “Blake in your field I can see where theatrical value is important, maybe even more important that evidence when your task is to try to convince a jury. In my field theatrics has no value”
Well then why all of the cheesy, damning, scary pictures for articles on your web-site [grin]? However, what you call “theatrics” is in fact simply a response to some very intelligent people who claimed they cold show that God’s existence is logically impossible if evil exists. I agree it has no value for people like you because you already accept the conclusion. I brought it up just to show the difference between possible, plausible, probable and certain anyway.
However, I believe that most FARMS pieces are defensive in nature in this same respect — they attempt to show that arguments made against the Church are not valid. So they aren’t offering proof of anything but merely pointing out that the arguments don’t lead to the conclusions the critics claim they do.
Finally, I believe that there are in fact substantive arguments in favor of the Church that are very persuasive and I see them just being ignored by critics because they don’t know how to respond. For example, I have written about the prophetic call pattern culled out by form-critical analysis in 1 Ne. 1. It is very clearly there and very difficult to account for on the view that Joseph Smith just made it up or got it out of his enviroment because knowledge of this form wasn’t in the environment. Numerous people have recognized a covenant renewal festival in Mosiah and at least three other places in the Book of Mormon that is really quite compelling. Again numerous people have independently recognized this form as well — but I cannot see how Joseph could possibly have divined it unless his story is taken seriously. There are four places in the Book of Mormon where Hebrew legal procedure is followed in detail. The Hebrew legal procedure is very different from ours and I don’t know anyone who just comes up with this procedure without being taught about it — but there it is in the Book of Mormon repeatedly (and demonstrably). I haven’t seen any explanation of these form-critical elements that doesn’t amount to the sheer failure to deal with the evidence: “well that’s just the way a person growing in New York in the early 1800s would write such a book.” Balderdash.
So until I get some good faith plausible explanation for what I believe requires taking Joseph Smith’s story very seriously, I’ll continue to assert that there is strong evidence that makes it very probable that he was a prophet.
My experience with FARMS is different than yours. It can be uneven; but there is some very good stuff there.
Tom, I disagree with the degree of certainty that you assign to the issues above. They are opinions not shared by the lion’s share of the world but more importantly are not shared by the majority of scholars of the world.
One atheist ‘defector’ doesn’t carry much weight either when compared to the majority of atheists who have considered the same issues and conclude differently.
I appreciate your personal experience and I appreciate that you point out that it could be your mind playing tricks. I’ve had similar experience and one in particular that I still contend opened my mind to something that I couldn’t have known through my mind playing tricks. For years I concluded that the experience could only have come from God and still value the experience as something more than my mind playing tricks. I tell you in all honesty and sincerity that I can, that that particular experience happened on the day that I finally chose to leave Mormonism. It was that experience, coupled with all the evidence that I’d studied in the previous two years that led me to leave. That was 13 years ago. Life has been very good for me since then. I’m more at peace with life and what happens after than I ever was as a Mormon. I’ve been much better financially since leaving (even if you set aside the 10% raise I gave myself when I quite paying tithing). I think my family keeps expecting my good fortune change any day now because of what I chose 13 years ago. I hope they’re getting tired of waiting.
Last year I found out I had cancer. A few months later I learned through a bishop friend here at work that someone in his ward who was my age found out he also had the same cancer. The bishop friend wanted to pick my brain because for some reason I was fortunate enough that although it was the same cancer mine was 100% cured. He wanted to know why so he could maybe help use the information to help his member. Unfortunately I wasn’t able to offer anything that could help because I was cured because I found out so early. His ward member found out to late and will likely be dealing with it until it brings his life to an early end. Why was I ‘blessed’ but the Mormon guy wasn’t? I can’t answer that. I was just lucky I guess. I realize that someday my health will fail me. It’s inevitable for all of us. Maybe then my family will finally say, “Aha! See! We told you so!”
TOm, how can you and I arrive at different places based on similar experiences? I don’t know. We just did. But I value your experience and your choice and your right to your conclusions as I think/hope you value my right to the same.
This was in response to your first post. I will try to respond to your second soon.
Jeff,
I was being too obscure.
I knew you were referring to Blake’s lawyer profession when you spoke of “theatrics.”
I was saying two things.
1. I am an Engineer and I do not see “theatrics” in the FARMS arguments.
2. You have taken offence from Blake at least twice on this thread when I saw nothing in Blake’s words to cause that offence. However suggesting that Blake’s profession is significantly associated with theatrics could in fact be offensive, but I was not sure if he would take it that way. Fortunately it seems he has not.
The positive case for the BOM so radically eclipses the problems with the BOM in my opinion that it can support the BOA which is a net negative (IMO) on the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS.
I have seen reference (probably by Blake) to at least one of the things that he mentioned in his post, but I have not seen a response by LDS critics. As two evangelical Christians put it, you are “losing the battle and don’t know it.” The reason you do not know it is because it is clear to you that the top 10 negative things concerning the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS are in fact evidence against the truth claims of Mormonism. It is not surprising to me that the top 10 negative things are in fact negative and if one looks at these and the attempted responses, one will find the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS weak. But in the face of overwhelming silence, the top 10 positive things are amazingly convincing. If you search for the rare voice that breaks the silence, it is still my opinion that the positive things are very positive. On the whole (positive and negative weighed) I think Mormonism is far better explained by an appeal to God than be any naturalistic explanation.
Charity, TOm
Blake, with all due respect, not everyone is as generous as you in their evaluation of the quality of your arguments. See the following, titled:
Blake Ostler’s Errors:
It Takes a Lot of Wishful Thinking
to Make DNA Lineages Go Away
Not everyone is as generous as you in their evaluation of the quality of FARMS publications:
“Critics declare that FARMS sometimes uses circular logic in their arguments. Similarly, some critics have suggested that FARMS’ reasoning is backwards from usual scientific of scholarly practices: FARMS arrives at their faith-based conclusion first, then afterwards seeks out supporting evidence. Dr. Simon G. Southerton, a former Latter-day Saint who has published a book [3] disputing FARMS’ claims about the origins of Native Americans, said, “I was amazed at the lengths that FARMS went to in order to prop up faith in the Book of Mormon. I felt that the only way I could be satisfied with FARMS explanations was to stop thinking.”
…and…
“Others have accused FARMS of engaging in mean-spirited polemics. Even some devout Mormons have been bothered by what they see as ad hominem attacks: attacking someone personally, rather than analyzing the merits of their ideas. Especially often, FARMS is accused of labeling someone an “anti-Mormon”, and then discounting their works as biased, based largely on this pronouncement. In a speech offered before the Sunstone Symposium (titled “Why I No Longer Trust the FARMS Review of Books”), John Hatch said, “After reading the (FARMS) reviews myself, it appears to me, and is my opinion, that FARMS is interested in making Mormonism’s past appear as normal as possible to readers by attacking history books that discuss complex or difficult aspects of the church’s past. As one who hopes to some day contribute to the body of the New Mormon History, I am deeply troubled by what I see as continued efforts to attack honest scholarly work.”
Both of the above are found at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FARMS
I am neither an engineer, nor a philosopher. I am an historian. From my perspective I find neither the witnesses to the Book of Mormon nor apologetic arguments in favor of its antiquity very compelling. I would never say that I know for an absolute fact that the book is not ancient. I simply see no compelling evidence to lead me to accept its antiquity.
A person who believes Joseph Smith’s story about the discovery and translation of the plates have been provided with enough interesting data to support the plausibility that the text *might* be ancient in some way. Mr. Ostler’s theory of the modern expansion of an ancient text is one such example of an argument providing plausibility. What I am looking for is archaeological and textual data of such a weight that it overwhelms the case for 19th century origins. From my understanding of Joseph Smith’s environment, the book fits there pretty perfectly.
In arguments for and against something like the Book of Mormon, an issue like the antiquity of the text is only of secondary importance. Of primary importance, and I am seconding John D here, is belief or non-belief. In my view, neither belief nor non-belief can ultimately be vindicated by historical arguments. Theology is grounded in the art of philosophy for a reason. It begins with certain set assumptions and works from those assumptions by certain rules. A logical argument does not vindicate the base assumptions as much as it demonstrates its own logic or fails to.
What I regret most about the tussle between apologists and critics of the LDS Church is the apparent polarization of Mormon thought into two camps. Before I quit attending the LDS Church, I was a believer in Mormonism who did not accept the historicity of the Book of Mormon.
Very few apologists or critics were respectful of that position, since they not only invest so much effort in the game of making their position more plausible, but also because on some level they really do tie this plausibility game to a conviction that greater plausibility vindicates the truth of their belief. To me, it is nothing more than a war of words and a tumult of opinions.
I have removed myself from Church activity, partly because I am tired of feeling pressured to choose sides in debates that are now pointless to me. I don’t see the questions about the history of the Church being a matter of absolute truth or it being absolutely untrue.
I was dismayed that the Church seems to have invested a lot in making the interpretation of history such a powerful marker of appropriate religious identity and membership. I would hope that in 21st-century America we could move past such silliness. From what I can see the ex-Mormon crowd are no better about avoiding this nonsense.
History is far more complicated than that, and arguments in favor of or against the “factual correctness” of Joseph Smith’s account of the First Vision in 1838, for example, are laughable. The 1838 account is Joseph Smith’s representation of an experience that occurred in the early 1820s. Period. It stands as evidence of his interpretation of his experience nearly two decades after the fact. There you have it.
What we see a Bushman or a Brodie doing are shading and interpreting such evidence in one direction or the other. One historian takes a believer’s stance; the other does not.
There are only two kinds of arguments with regard to Mormon history that are of religious significance that have any interest to me. The first is the argument about Mormonism’s place in the Christian tradition. The second is Mormonism’s development as a unique movement. The only other kind of historical argument about Mormonism that is interesting to me concerns Mormonism as a religious phenomenon as described from a secular perspective.
I appreciated Ostler’s work on the Book of Mormon as an expansion of an ancient text. I also thought there were genuinely interesting thoughts included in that criticism of Bushman’s biography that Jeff linked us to (regardless of its unruly tone). What is sadly amusing is the theatrics of righteous indignation on either side in response to all of these discussions. All they achieve is the placement of identity boundaries. They don’t really move the discussion forward.
But we are all here for different reasons. I suppose this activity serves a purpose that is important for someone. My purpose is to grapple with my own Mormon identity where I am today, and to enjoy discussing issues of Mormon history. Thanks to all of you for keeping this discussion lively and thought provoking. Thanks also to John for providing a banquet for thought and a forum for this discussion.
Jeff: First, the fact that someone disagrees shows nothing. Signature had to prop up the sagging argument of Southerton because, as I and a lot of others see it, I had pretty well decimated his DNA arguments in Sunstone. Second, engaging in name-calling by accusing the opponent of name-calling does nothing to respond to an argument. The ploy of focusing on what they could take offense to in order to avoid dealing with the substance of the arguments is inexcusable and simply non-sense in the worst sense. What for example Hatch labels (and it is merely a label) as an attack on “honest scholarly works” are actually serious assessments of the merits of the historical arguments and assessment of the data.
Finally, what the heck has that got to do with lines of evidnece from form-critical analysis that I mentioned? What you say is not merely totally irrelevant, it is simply to dredge up examples of those who engage in precisely what you want to condemn. I responded to Priddis’ arguments on this blog some time ago — he couldn’t even get the basic argument that I made right and he attacked a complete straw man. Is that your idea of an argument that has merit? You can see that prior exchange here: http://mormonstories.org/?p=140#comment-26920
Frankly, Priddis arguments were the worst examples of name-calling and simply enaging in straw-man tactics you could point to — and you have the gaul in doing so to criticize FARMS?
Blake, I didn’t read the entire “Blake Ostler’s Errors” document — It’s quite long — but from my limited engineer’s perspective I can’t say I found anything that was what I would call name calling. I could easily have missed something though. And from what I read, the arguments seem to me to be well reasoned.
Howeve, not being thoroughly acquainted with the subject I’m not in a position to say whether the arguments are of a straw-man nature as you charge but I believe I understand the term well enough that I can point out several straw-man arguments of yours in this thread if you would like me to.
Now as to this comment of yours,
“and you have the gaul in doing so to criticize FARMS?”
Please read again what I said. The link to the “Blake Ostler’s Errors” document was not in response to the quality of FARMS material it was in response to a statement of yours where you were giving one of your papers high praise. I only wanted to show that not everyone agrees that your arguments are necessarily well reasoned.
I think it’s clear that the references are germane to this dicussion because they were both in response to assertions or points you raised.
Blake said: “What for example Hatch labels (and it is merely a label) as an attack on “honest scholarly works” are actually serious assessments of the merits of the historical arguments and assessment of the data.”
Correct me if I’m wrong but I think “serious assements” is also “merely a label,” as you say.
Trevor, I appreciate your comments, observations and criticims.
I’d like to clarify something about the “unruly tone” of the Rough Stone Rolling critic I linked near the top of this thread. I agree, it is a bit unruly but I should explain the context within it was written. It actually originated as a long discussion thread where the author would read a chapter then post his comments among some friends and we would comment on his observations. Since he was among friends he in good fun titled the thread, Reading Rough Stone Rolling, So You Don’t Have To.
I later encouraged the author to compile his discussion forum posts into one document which resulted in the form that it now is. At the beginning the author touches on the origins of the document but I can see how it doesn’t quite explain it as clearly (hopefully) as above.
Jeff,
Thanks for the background. What I found most useful about this piece was that the author showed how Bushman’s rhetoric tried to make a critic’s position appear unreasonable. I see the non-believer critic’s position as being no less tenable than the believing proponent’s position. I believe that Bushman wrote those sentiments about critics of Smith in good faith. They are an expression of his belief, but it is fair to point out that these are his assumptions, and they don’t approach anything like factual truth.
Bushman has been fairly open about his purpose, which is partly to make Mormonism more respectable in the eyes of the non-member. Personally, I disagree with his approach on some matters–particularly the way he deals with Joseph Smith’s magical practices. If I were an expert in American History, I would pursue the topic in publication. I have to attend to getting things published in my own field first.
Speaking of making Mormonism sound reasonable, it is my belief that this is basically what apologetics is all about–making Mormonism appear respectable and rhetorically dismantling those who try to achieve the opposite. For those of you who want historical perspective on this activity, go and read the polemical and apologetic literature regarding Christianity from Greco-Roman antiquity. Once you do, you’ll see how little things have changed.
Of course, the LDS community is no more or less respectable than any other religious community that roughly fits within the mores of modern Western society. It’s a shame that this realization does not generally occur to or cut it with many people. I generally find it humorous that Christians criticize Mormonism, when there was a time that Christianity was arguably as controversial as Mormonism when it first appeared. It is odd how a couple thousand years of tradition furnish such legitimacy to stories that have even less historical foundation than Joseph Smith’s First Vision.
Thanks again for your insights. I have to agree with you that in general Mormonism is no better or no worse than other religions. However, I see Mormonism as more dogmatic and therefore (in my opinion) more oppressive and intrusive in people’s lives than say, the Episcopal flavor of Christianity.
I have to admit that one thing that really gets me going at times is when I see, as you touched on, a Christian running down Mormonism. I can’t help but picture it as people in glass houses throwing stones at people in glass houses.
Jeff says:
Tom, I disagree with the degree of certainty that you assign to the issues above. They are opinions not shared by the lion’s share of the world but more importantly are not shared by the majority of scholars of the world.
TOm says:
I offered 5 things. I was not saying that they created certainty only that the Mormon or theistic view is more probable than the responses (if any) to these things. I am strongly of the opinion that the lion’s share of the world and the majority of scholars have never even considered them so I am not sure why you think they have been dismissed.
Concerning Mormonism, of the folks who have discussed the witnesses with any rigor or NHM with any rigor, the majority are LDS. The vast majority of scholars with any training in these matters who have addressed these issues are also LDS. There are many fans of Dan Vogel who adopt his view of the witnesses and many fans of Dan Peterson who adopt his view, but of those who have looked at the sources, most remain LDS and many offer apologetic reasons for their faith.
Jeff says:
One atheist ‘defector’ doesn’t carry much weight either when compared to the majority of atheists who have considered the same issues and conclude differently.
TOm:
The majority of Atheists have not addressed the issue of self-replicating DNA, but my statement is that the Atheist position is weakened by the arguments concerning self-replicating DNA. Some atheist do not get past the huge non-Mormon theist problem of evil and a few do not get past the present Mormon theist problem of evil, but this has nothing to do with self-replicating DNA.
Concerning cancer, wealth, and “God taking a vacation.”:
I read your departure from Mormonism discussion and your latest post. You have approached Mormonism radically differently than I have. I am a convert. I have never expected that my life would be full of cherries solely as a product of my faith. I am not a fan of what Protestants call the “health and wellness gospel.” I strongly suspect that those closest to God sometimes get the hardest lots in life.
I respect folks with what seems to me to be very fundamentalist views even though I do not consider myself to hold such views. You and a number of my current Mormon brothers and sisters seem to hold fundamentalist views associated with Mormonism (you as one who rejects it and they as ones who believe it).
I said earlier in this thread that fundamentalist views virtually always gives way under the non-black and white world that we live in. However, faith does not always depart when fundamentalist assumptions are dashed. There is a great book called Stages of Faith. Stage 4 occurs for many when they feel the cognitive dissonance that results when things they thought were black and white turn out to be much more gray. Some folks cease to be theists and some folks cease to fundamentalists. Some folks never get beyond stage three and some folks return there because stage 4 hurts. It is my opinion that folks who work through the historical difficulties in Mormonism, Christianity, and the Constitutional Congress emerge with a significantly less black and white view.
Concerning DNA, am I under a misapprehension when I say that Southernton (who while not a human geneticist is much better versed than Murphy in this subject) has acknowledged that the DNA evidence does little to disprove the prevailing limited geography model?
Trevor,
You said:
Of course, the LDS community is no more or less respectable than any other religious community that roughly fits within the mores of modern Western society. It’s a shame that this realization does not generally occur to or cut it with many people. I generally find it humorous that Christians criticize Mormonism, when there was a time that Christianity was arguably as controversial as Mormonism when it first appeared. It is odd how a couple thousand years of tradition furnish such legitimacy to stories that have even less historical foundation than Joseph Smith’s First Vision.
TOm:
This aligns with something that I have generally believed for a long time. Since I am quite convinced I will fail to explain away what I know of God, I guess it is good I have chosen Mormonism.
I am not sure how to move the atheist to theism, but there are many who have success at this. From a belief in God, I think Mormonism make the most sense of the available data.
Charity, TOm
Jeff,
I think that you need to do more explaining about the Bushman critique you posted. First, the individual posted his thoughts about Bushman on your website and then received overwhelming support from the postmos who were posting on the thread. Unfortunately, a true and debatable critique from the posters was generally not allowed since TBMs are banned from your site, or should I say, anyone who may lean to a more positive perspective. Hence, what the critic received was a one-sided analysis of his work without much of a challenge. (sound familiar?)
I would not call this fair. Also, for all your critique of mormonism, one can find similiar extremes on your site. Where is true debate? Where is discussion from different perspectives and points of view that may include a lds perspective? I fail to see them.
The lds church has a history and it can be read. Now I would agree that the lds church needs to be more forthcoming and if you spend some time at the Mormon apologetic and Discussion site, you will find that many viewpoints are exchanged about church history and ‘whitewashing’. To a lesser extent the lds church needs to do the same.
But Jeff are you not guity of sheltering opinions on your own site? Do you also involve yourself in ‘expression limitation’ to protect your flock?
I am curious about your reply. Lets not call one kettle whiter than the other.
I get the irony you are trying to point out, but I proceed anyway.
Where is true debate in the Ensign? At Sunday School? In the FARMS Review?
There are places where people conduct real debate, and places they do not. The latter are not necessarily illegitimate. They perform a function for the community.
The question should be “does a community provide any outlet for open discussion”? I think it ought to. I am not trying to provide a ‘tit for tat’ comparison of the post/ex-Mormon community and the Church. I’m just stating my views.
Why Me: Good to see you’re still alive and kicking but not so good that you’re up to your old tricks. I think John’s intent is to keep discussions at least somewhat related to the topic at the top of this thread, or at least moving in a direction that people seem to want to pursue as the discussion unfolds. As was the case on our website, after allowing you months to freely jump in to discussions and share your thought, and after repeated warning when you were being disrespectful and dismissive to some people, only then was your membership cancelled. I
It was determined that your repeated attempts to sidetrack discussions, only for the purpose of raising a ruckus (similar to how you now seem to be disrupting this discussion what would call an attempt at tossing in a red-herring) were to disruptive and only then were you banned. TBM’s are still and always have been welcome as long as they will be respectful and follow the same rules everyone else does. I think your a good example of just how far we’ll bend over backwards to accommodate people before we send them away.
Trevor-
I agree that there ought to be a forum for open discussion of these issues somewhere within the realm of “average” mormonism (as I said before, whether that’s an institute class, more accurate cirriculum or an online tutorial:-). That we’re discussing extremely technical issues here when a large percentage of church members who still consider themselves mormons would have no idea what were talking about (no offense, arrogance, etc intended) underscores my point – the church is teaching a version of history (and since they are for some reason linked, theology) that is not up to par with the facts. And yes, Blake, I think enough people on both can agree on the material facts of our history for purposes of my position….despite their various interpretations.
That we have such talent, historical detail and better context of our religion (as is evidenced by Bushman’s book, various and sundry scholarly studies, Exmormon perspective and healthy skepticism) the tragety and huge problem for me is that we continue to use a fairy tale version of events for our core cirriculum. We don’t even dare to bring up the facts in a church context….but we expect (implied not physical force) total obedience, compliance and dedication from lay membership. To me, that is the issue here – as interesting as the philosophical, scientific and technical arguments are.
I long for the day when I see a suggestion box next the tithing envelopes, the encouragement of an open door policy in leadership manuals, a discussion this topic on the church web site or a substantive, open and honest, give and take on any of these issues (historical, scientific, etc) in priesthood leadership meeting (when the stake president, or sometimes visiting GA asks “are there any questions”).
Based on the lack of feedback facilitated by the church on these issues, I had to chuckle (privately and respectfully of course) when Elder Holland, last conference, said something to the effect of church leaders being absolutely in touch with issues surrounding the church. Maybe I’m the one who is out of touch, but that the church knows about the facts/official position issue (and the number of people who are effected and leaving the church over it) and has done nothing to correct it….makes me really wonder.
TOm, I hope you don’t mind me responding generally for now.
I feel like you are representing a degree of certainty on some issues that I and many others would disagree are as finally settled as you indicate. I would say that in your opinion the evidence weighs in favor of Mormonism. In my opinion you’re wrong, but respect your choice because I don’t think its an uninformed one.
Now, I’d like to get specific. I’m interested in any information you can direct me to that describes the issues your raise about non-replicating DNA, and I think you also imply that there’s something about self-replicating DNA I should be aware of.
Regarding what I’ll call the “rosy geography model” of life
I’m glad you read my exit story so you understand better how I arrived where I am in life. I agree that my expectation that life should work better for me because I was paying my tithing was a niave, unrealistic expecation, but that belief was a product of my Mormon education. I now view at is a silly expectation.
I want to point out that while it was the tithing issue that was my trigger issue, it’s not the reason I left the Church. It only set me in a frame of mind to be more objective about Mormonism and I’ve found that when many people reach that same point, regarless of what their trigger issue was, they also end up leaving.
If you feel I’ve dismissed any of your points you’d like me to address let me know and I’ll do my best to respond to them.
TOm: “Concerning DNA, am I under a misapprehension when I say that Southernton (who while not a human geneticist is much better versed than Murphy in this subject) has acknowledged that the DNA evidence does little to disprove the prevailing limited geography model?”
Well, you are now because after his admission was pointed to by several (including in my Sunstone articles) that the DNA evidence could easily be explained by assimlation of a small group into the larger population, Signature Books excised the statement from its web-site and re-designed his response. Such are the vagaries and theatrics of the internet.
Adcama: I appreciate and admire your for both pointing out the problems you see in Mormonism and especially that you’re suggestion some possible solutions. I can’t say the same about myself. I tend to overlook the latter.
Jeff,
I see that you are also making some generalizations here on this thread. For example, you comment how more often than not, members tend to to exhibit some of the meanest and most un-christ like behavior toward people who leave the church. Of course, this is your opinion and not backed up with facts. It is such open ended statements like this that tends to color what you may post.
For many of us, this has not been the case and the GA’s put emphasis on love and not rejection. Do some people reject the person who leaves? I think so but they are in the wrong and the lds church does not condone such behavior.
However, such generalizations seem to work for post and exmormons.
The point of my last post was a simple one. You call for more openness within the church but you do not allow for openness on your site. Why the contradiction? I would think that your case for more openness would have more teeth if your website valued its own openness. Do you see my point? Those who have the misfortune to post a positive about the church on your site are hounded by the hard-core posters on your site, especially if the poster sticks around for any length of time. Hence, you have a small group of likeminded people (something that you may intone criticism about the lds church as being an institution of like minded individuals), on your own site.
Now I am in agreement that there should be more openness in relating to lds history. And I do believe that such openness is coming. I think that you will find that many lds people know specific (unknown)details about the history of lds church. But they are not discussed in the church meetings unless someone brings them up.
Lets face it, the Bushman book is a milestone in LDS scholarship. And more books are on the way, if I understood the posts on Mormon Apologetics and Discussion threads.
And Jeff, we all need to be positive about this. Plus, we need to be positive about such sites as Mormon stories, as a place for democratic lds discussion. Now if only we could get the ex and postmo sites to do the same, well…maybe someday.
Why Me:
Click here–> >>>>HERE
…and please read it this time.
why me,
I agree that the Bushman biography is a milestone, and there are other independent scholars who are coming out with interesting work. The fact that Bushman will not be disciplined for his scholarship is a milestone too. Still, the Church has done little to address the challenges posed by the proliferation of challenging material on the internet. This material represents an educational challenge that the Church ought to rise to meet in a positive way instead of leaving the whole burden of the effort of addressing it to well-meaning but sometimes ill-equiped and ill-tempered individual scholars and amateurs. FARMS and FAIR are not evidence of a Church educational effort, for all of the interesting things they bring to the table.
Hello Trevor,
I think that you are correct. But I also think that it will come. There are bits and pieces coming out and as I understand it, Dessert Bookshops do have books that address issues of history, including the Bushman book. Not to mention the discussions that go on at BYU and the various seminars that have occured during the Joseph Smith 200th anniversary year.
Also, members do have access to books and materials, if they seek them. But I do agree with you. I think that what is needed is a more intensive investigator program that is similiar to the Catholic Church’s program. It is a year long program that explains much about the doctrine of the catholic church. And I do believe that the lds church could organize a ‘Problems’ class that discusses controversial issues.
When my daughter listened to the Ann Wilder podcast about polygamy and Joseph Smith she had no problem because the story made sense to her with just some explanation from me.
But as strange as this may sound I do think that the Joseph Smith and the hat story is more faith confirming than the other stories that one comes across. Lets face it, anyone that tries to organize a church falsely, and issues the book of mormon, and seeks members would come up with a better story than the hat and stones.
As such, the translation must have happened just as he said…with a hat and stones. Interesting.
Trevor,
In regards to your post #125, I would say that I can agree with you to some extent. However, the Ensign is not for debate, it is for instruction and faith affirmation. However, people who claim to want more openness in the lds church should allow free and open debate on their own website…and this is my point with Jeff. For example someone on his site got a little annoyed with John for being to pro-lds, saying that John is doing the work for the general authorities. And then the poster slammed the lds church’s money connection in the same thread.
Will there be honest debate about this? No. I don’t think so…but who knows maybe I will be mildly surprised.
The lds have free and open discussions on their webpages…there is a certain level of debate…the information is getting out there in intense discussion. I only ask the same on countermo sites.
Now the Bushman book and the interview. I found nothing that would shake my faith, if I were a active member of the church. And yes, such information should be out there and Bushman confirms this. It will happen.
And Jeff you and I have different interpretations of my banning. And you must know, that it was kind of lonely being the lone defender of certain things mormon against a fair amount of countermormon posters. And Jeff, I haven’t been banned from the Mormon Apologetics and Discussion (formly FAIR Boards)forum as you predicted and I am still the same person…do you see my point?
The Apologetic site is open for discussion and I want to encourage you to bring your ideas over there..just identify yourself by name and have a conversation with the posters. I look forward to it. http://www.mormonapologetics.org
The times they are a changing inside the lds church…
why me,
Thanks for sharing your perspective. I wish we could all have the ideal discussion on Mormonism. I doubt it will happen, but the best thing that has happened IMHO is the internet. Information is proliferating. Discussions are happening. On the whole I think this is positive.
I am astounded, and allow me to gush if I may, at John’s achievement here. Richard Bushman. Wow. Congratulations to you, John. This has been a big treat for me. Although I do not agree with Bushman on a few things, he is a scholar of great stature and a real gentleman. Thanks should go to him for being such a generous person with his time and views.
I would like to point something else out. Today on NPR’s Science Friday an administrator from NASA appeared on the show to talk about the recent system failure on the Hubble. A caller asked him whether he thought that current funding for NASA was sufficient. He wouldn’t share his opinion because he was appearing as a representative of NASA.
The advantage of leaving Mormon scholarship as far outside of the Church’s purview as possible is that we can hear Bushman come on Mormon Stories and share his point of view. Naturally, he is circumspect about what he says, but I sincerely doubt we would have such a thing as a Mormon Stories Bushman interview if the LDS Church were half as oppressive as some people imagine it or they truly decided to control scholarship.
I can’t say that I have heard anything about John’s impending disciplinary court, but I shouldn’t speak for him.
Not only am I not being disciplined, but I’m active, hold callings, and have been allowed to teach Elder’s Quorum for 2 1/2 years now.
In today’s climate, you have to do something very extreme to get excommunicated or disfellowshipped.
I’ve tried to be responsible and fair, and I don’t feel at risk at all.
That’s how I feel, anyway.
Jeff,
As I understand Antony Flew’s conversion (and we are talking about perhaps the top 20th-21st century Atheist philosopher, but certainly on of the top 3-5 not just one among many atheists) he became convinced that the complexities associated with SELF-replicating DNA were so unexplainable through naturalistic evolution that the data compelled him to see an intelligence as the author of this biological structure. Without self replicating DNA, Darwin’s ideas do not enter into the equation. Until there are subsequent generations, there is no “survival of the fittest” evolution. This necessary “intelligence” would be superior to and more importantly would pre-date the developed intelligence that exists today in the human mind. Such complexity pre-dating the simplest of creatures is not explained via Darwinian evolution.
Flew’s letter to Philosophy Now: http://www.philosophynow.org/issue47/47flew.htm
“But the evidential situation of natural (as opposed to revealed) theology has been transformed in the more than fifty years since Watson and Crick won the Nobel Prize for their discovery of the double helix structure of DNA. It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism.”
Here is an interview with Flew:
http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/flew-interview.pdf
Now, I am not saying that Flew has become a Christian, he has clearly not. I am not even saying that I find his reason for theism to be the best reason to be a theist. I do however believe, that he points to a strong argument for theism that comes from evidence available to all (as opposed to evidence only available to the individual person).
I have followed Flew some and it seems to me that if he were to read Blake’s two volumes of Exploring Mormon Thought, some of his reasons for rejecting Christianity would be removed. Perhaps he could be a LDS who thinks like Blake!
Charity, TOm
TOm said:
“Concerning DNA, am I under a misapprehension when I say that Southerton (who while not a human geneticist is much better versed than Murphy in this subject) has acknowledged that the DNA evidence does little to disprove the prevailing limited geography model?”
Blake said:
“Well, you are now because after his admission was pointed to by several (including in my Sunstone articles) that the DNA evidence could easily be explained by assimlation of a small group into the larger population, Signature Books excised the statement from its web-site and re-designed his response. Such are the vagaries and theatrics of the internet.”
TOm:
I was not aware that Southerton had been edited to support certain folk’s faith based beliefs. Here is what I have been quoting (and you quoted) from Southerton’s pre-edited comments,
“In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites, say less than thirty, entered such a massive native population, it would be very hard to detect their genes today.” — Simon Southerton
Before I ever heard of a DNA case against the BOM, I had accepted that 30 Isrealites had interjected themselves into a large native culture. The BOM demands this. So when Southerton, in my opinion the only remotely qualified of the two famous DNA critics, made the above statement, DNA was no longer of any concern for the truth claims of the BOM. It was neither positive nor negative.
Charity, TOm