A New MI Article: Kudos to Steven C. Harper

[_Elphaba]

PS Elphaba, could you check the link to the Brodie interview, I would love to read it.

Augghhh! I don't know why I have such a hard time successfully naming links here, but I do. Sorry about that.

Try this: http://www.salamandersociety.com/interviews/fawnbrodie/

[_lulu]

PS Elphaba, could you check the link to the Brodie interview, I would love to read it.

Augghhh! I don't know why I have such a hard time successfully naming links here, but I do. Sorry about that.

Try this: http://www.salamandersociety.com/interviews/fawnbrodie/

Thanks.

Here are some quotes that I think are relevant to this thread.

But it is not fair to describe him as a simple imposter. This was a very special, complicated story.

A: It all verifies the original thesis, that his was an evolutionary process from the very beginning, that the visions probably began in some kind of childhood dream and, at any rate, were very, very different from the way he described them when he began writing his history.

And, I think, too, I would discuss the nature of his identity problems, which I think was severe, in psychiatric terms.

The fraudulent nature of the Book of Mormon is, I think, unmistakable; that has not changed.

A: I was convinced before I ever began writing the book that Joseph Smith was not a true prophet

[_Sethbag]

Overall, while I take Harper's point, I also find a lot of irony in his piece. First, he is guilty of that which Brodie is so often criticized, i.e., making unsubstantiated claims about her psychological motivations. He writes:

. . . she chose to leave the faith and underwent a painful reorientation process that required her to account for the Book of Mormon and to reinterpret Joseph’s first vision.

I agree that there is some irony in his making statements about Brodie's likely thought processes, I have even more of a beef with his use of the word "process". By saying that she underwent a "process that required her to account for the Book of Mormon and to reinterpret Joseph's first vision", Harper is separating out the accounting for the Book of Mormon and the reinterpretation of the First Vision from what was going on in her mind as she left the faith. In other words, "something happened to her, and this thing that happened to her lead to her having to accounting for the Book of Mormon in non-faithful ways, and reinterpreting the FV in non-faithful ways." The problem here should be obvious: what if her accounting for the Book of Mormon in other-than-faithful ways, and reinterpreting the FV were the "painful reorientation process" that she was going through?

This strikes at the heart of the stark difference between what we critics often say we have experienced with our loss of faith, and what mopologists ascribe to us in their own minds. We say we stopped believing, and so left the church. They say we left the church, and so stopped believing. It delegitimizes the loss of faith. The loss of faith becomes a consequence of leaving the church, rather than its cause. This fits the mopologetic narrative nicely, which has it that since there isn't a legitimate reason to stop believing, something happens to us or we do something (we sin, lose the Spirit, let Satan lead us down the primrose path, etc.) which opens us up to making an illegitimate choice, ie: changing our minds about the truth of the Book of Mormon, the First Vision, etc.

Steven does seem to be using a priori incorrectly, to mean an argument which one assumes to be true, rather than as an argument which requires no experiential input to be cogent. The irony here is that I think that he assumes that the church is true, and cannot be otherwise, in his own condemntation of Brodie for what he perceives is her doing the exact opposite.

[_Drifting]

Dr. Scratch,

I happen to know Steven Harper personally. He is a great guy with a big heart. I will send him an email with this link. He will appreciate that you singled his article out for advocating civility.

Steven has more in common with you than you probably realize, Dr. Scratch. I know that Steven disagrees strongly with the bullying tactics promoted by DCP, Hamblin and Midgley. I think the main reason Steven contributes these types of articles is to show that not all apologists are angry, bitter and narrow-minded.

I really think the old guard is on life support. The future is apologists like Steven and Bokovoy.

I foresee Mssrs Harper and Bokovoy being marginalised if not run out of MI Town completely in the not too distant future...

[_Darth J]

Sethbag, you are exactly right. And in addition to your points, Harper is also mischaracterizing the issue.

"Historically there have been just three basic arguments against the authenticity of Joseph Smith’s first vision. They all begin with the a priori premise that such a vision simply could not have happened."

That is spectacularly inaccurate. There are in fact people who believe in various types of spiritual experiences who do not believe that the story of the First Vision that the Church ultimately settled on ever happened. Harper wants to frame the issue as "anyone who doesn't believe the Pearl of Great Price version of the First Vision is an atheist or a closed-canon sectarian, so it is entirely a matter of faith." No, it's not. The issue is whether on this particular occasion, this particular experience happened to Joseph Smith. That means we can look at dates, current events, and consistency in Joseph Smith's story and behavior after the alleged event.

But Harper does not want that, because if key elements of the story are falsifiable, then the reliability of Joseph Smith's account (this version of the account, anyway) can be called into question based on objective fact. Since that is extremely problematic, it must needs be that he characterizes the issue as "anyone who rejects this story must have predetermined that it's impossible based on ideological grounds." And that is standard operating procedure in Mormon apologetics. Framing Mormon truth claims in terms of evidentiary issues is a losing battle, so the supposed agenda/motives/ideology of the doubter must be attacked, instead.

It is natural for reasonable people to doubt a story if there are significant discrepancies when the story is retold. Recently, the Utah Supreme Court reversed a man's conviction for child sex abuse because his attorney "did not properly investigate or exploit discrepancies in the victim’s statements about whether the abuse occurred in 2002 or 2003." State v. Moore. As the Utah Supreme Court explained,

Mr. Moore might have used the discrepancy to challenge the credibility of the victim and rest on the theory that the incident never occurred. He might have used the discrepancy to argue that the abuse occurred in 2003, hoping to avoid a conviction on the more serious offense. He might have raised a defense to the assertion that the incident happened in 2003.....[H]ad defense counsel exploited the issue of the time discrepancy, there is at least a reasonable probability that the jury would have doubted whether the abuse occurred in 2002.


That is, people on a jury could find a reasonable doubt about whether a victim was telling the truth based on this inconsistency over what year the abuse is claimed to have occurred. That's not because of some artifice of legal procedure; it's because of fundamental evaluations of evidence and judgments that reasonable people rely on in life. So if a reasonable person could doubt an alleged victim's story because of an inconsistency about what year it happened, then how well does Joseph Smith's credibility about the First Vision do when there are multiple, conflicting accounts of when it happened, why it happened, and what happened?

Not well, you say? Then I guess we need to frame the issue as "anyone who fails to believe in the First Vision only rejects it because he or she has already made up his or her mind that things like that never happen to anyone."

[_Kishkumen]

That is, people on a jury could find a reasonable doubt about whether a victim was telling the truth based on this inconsistency over what year the abuse is claimed to have occurred. That's not because of some artifice of legal procedure; it's because of fundamental evaluations of evidence and judgments that reasonable people rely on in life. So if a reasonable person could doubt an alleged victim's story because of an inconsistency about what year it happened, then how well does Joseph Smith's credibility about the First Vision do when there are multiple, conflicting accounts of when it happened, why it happened, and what happened?

Not well, you say? Then I guess we need to frame the issue as "anyone who fails to believe in the First Vision only rejects it because he or she has already made up his or her mind that things like that never happen to anyone."

I guess I was overcome by the generous captatio benevolentiae, and did not delve into the article in any detail. Obviously, it is silly to think that the only reason to reject the FV is because one is an atheist. Otherwise thousands of Christians across the globe would accept the FV and perhaps join the LDS Church. Furthermore, I think it is generally recognized by atheist students of religion that people have visions. The question is rather what causes them. A theist claims that the answer is simply "God" or whatever spiritual phenomenon depicted as involved in the thing. An atheist attributes it to that bit of undigested beef, hallucinogens, or some form of epilepsy or psychopathology.

The question about the FV is really about the credibility of Joseph Smith himself. In the context of his treasure digging activities, it is easy to come to the conclusion that his credibility is not all that good, since he was well practiced in spinning yarns about ghosts and which sacrifice God required to recover the treasure chest, etc. This is why it remains the case that Mormon historians generally avoid interpreting the FV in the larger context of the treasure digging stories. People hold the latter in low regard whereas they believe the former to be sacred and numinous.

I really don't think Joseph Smith's FV matters nearly as much as apologists or critics seem to think it does. It is the Book of Mormon that ultimately matters, because it is the Book of Mormon that constitutes the miracle of Mormonism that anyone can examine. Who was with Joseph Smith in the Sacred Grove on that fateful day in the spring of 1820, or wherever and whenever it may have occurred? Since the whole thing is a personal vision, which no other person saw occur, in the end it comes down to whether one chooses to trust Joseph Smith's highly personal experience or not.

This is no doubt one reason why early LDS missionary work did not involve the FV at all. It was only later, and for different reasons, that the story evolved into one of the foundational moments of the faith. But that required a large store of implicit trust in Joseph Smith as the martyred prophet and the one who opened the last dispensation. It was only then that the FV could begin to have the kind of heft necessary to be useful to members as an actual "argument" in favor of Mormonism. Indeed, it also required a good distance between the history of the event and the context in which it arose, since in its time the FV was fairly unremarkable as an example of a common conversion experience on the American frontier.

It was the career of Joseph Smith that made the FV in any way remarkable, not the other way around.

[Guest]

Thanks.

You're welcome. If you enjoyed that interview, you'll probably enjoy this Dialogue article I found. It's written by Newell Bringhurst, who has also written the definitive biography of Brodie. The title is Fawn Brodie and Her Quest for Independence.

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-cont ... N02_81.pdf

[_lulu]

An excellent thread (and post Kish) to wake me up and get me going on a Monday morning.

One thing I like about Taves who I cited above, she doesn't try to pathologize the trances and visions. Which is not to say that in some cases there is no pathology. And while some such definitely include the ingestion of substances, they don't necessarily need to either.

Its fairly well accepted that intense mental focus can produce a vision. My very brief Zen sensie warned us of this, told us not to worry and it was something one worked one's way through. Well, the opposite of what Taves suggests, that the disassociation ability can be improved, I find I have very little ability to focus that way, let alone pass through the vision stage on the way to enlightenment.

So it bothers me when the above possibility is not included in discussion of Joseph Smith. Yes it could have been pathology and/or substance ingestion, but I don't think the conversation should be limited to that.

How one then interprets that disassociative experience is necessarily influenced by one's culture. I doubt many Zen Buddhist are going to see Jesus. But during the 2nd Great Awaking, if a figure is involved in the conversion experience, it well could be seen as Jesus, although it could also be seen as an angel or in one case John Wesley. Some reported no figure as part of their conversion experience.

However well done Harper's book will be, I doubt it will take this as his starting point. But I would start in this vicinity, but truth be told, will probably never start at all.

I guess I was overcome by the generous captatio benevolentiae, and did not delve into the article in any detail. Obviously, it is silly to think that the only reason to reject the FV is because one is an atheist. Otherwise thousands of Christians across the globe would accept the FV and perhaps join the LDS Church. Furthermore, I think it is generally recognized by atheist students of religion that people have visions. The question is rather what causes them. A theist claims that the answer is simply "God" or whatever spiritual phenomenon depicted as involved in the thing. An atheist attributes it to that bit of undigested beef, hallucinogens, or some form of epilepsy or psychopathology.

The question about the FV is really about the credibility of Joseph Smith himself. In the context of his treasure digging activities, it is easy to come to the conclusion that his credibility is not all that good, since he was well practiced in spinning yarns about ghosts and which sacrifice God required to recover the treasure chest, etc. This is why it remains the case that Mormon historians generally avoid interpreting the FV in the larger context of the treasure digging stories. People hold the latter in low regard whereas they believe the former to be sacred and numinous.

I really don't think Joseph Smith's FV matters nearly as much as apologists or critics seem to think it does. It is the Book of Mormon that ultimately matters, because it is the Book of Mormon that constitutes the miracle of Mormonism that anyone can examine. Who was with Joseph Smith in the Sacred Grove on that fateful day in the spring of 1820, or wherever and whenever it may have occurred? Since the whole thing is a personal vision, which no other person saw occur, in the end it comes down to whether one chooses to trust Joseph Smith's highly personal experience or not.

This is no doubt one reason why early LDS missionary work did not involve the FV at all. It was only later, and for different reasons, that the story evolved into one of the foundational moments of the faith. But that required a large store of implicit trust in Joseph Smith as the martyred prophet and the one who opened the last dispensation. It was only then that the FV could begin to have the kind of heft necessary to be useful to members as an actual "argument" in favor of Mormonism. Indeed, it also required a good distance between the history of the event and the context in which it arose, since in its time the FV was fairly unremarkable as an example of a common conversion experience on the American frontier.

It was the career of Joseph Smith that made the FV in any way remarkable, not the other way around.

[Guest]

One thing I like about Taves who I cited above, she doesn't try to pathologize the trances and visions. Which is not to say that in some cases there is no pathology. And while some such definitely include the ingestion of substances, they don't necessarily need to either.

Its fairly well accepted that intense mental focus can produce a vision. My very brief Zen sensie warned us of this, told us not to worry and it was something one worked one's way through. Well, the opposite of what Taves suggests, that the disassociation ability can be improved, I find I have very little ability to focus that way, let alone pass through the vision stage on the way to enlightenment.

So it bothers me when the above possibility is not included in discussion of Joseph Smith. Yes it could have been pathology and/or substance ingestion, but I don't think the conversation should be limited to that.

How one then interprets that disassociative experience is necessarily influenced by one's culture. I doubt many Zen Buddhist are going to see Jesus. But during the 2nd Great Awaking, if a figure is involved in the conversion experience, it well could be seen as Jesus, although it could also be seen as an angel or in one case John Wesley. Some reported no figure as part of their conversion experience.

However well done Harper's book will be, I doubt it will take this as his starting point. But I would start in this vicinity, but truth be told, will probably never start at all.

Well said, lulu. I apologize for setting out such a misleading, stark contrast between atheists and theists on this issue. You are correct that bodily practices can be used to induce the same or similar states of trance and vision. Often a reflective surface or a light is useful, special breathing techniques, fasting, and so forth. Both the thaumaturges of the later Roman empire and the Christian ascetics engaged in these practices. The emperor Julian saw Cybele when he focused on the light of a candle; the Jesus Prayer as practiced by Orthodox monks involves special breathing techniques that can be dangerous if attempted by the ignorant and untrained average worshiper. One can have visions, certainly, without ingesting foreign substances or having a seizure.

Thanks for the correction.

[_Elphaba]

I agree that there is some irony in his making statements about Brodie's likely thought processes, I have even more of a beef with his use of the word "process".
>snip<
This strikes at the heart of the stark difference between what we critics often say we have experienced with our loss of faith, and what mopologists ascribe to us in their own minds. We say we stopped believing, and so left the church. They say we left the church, and so stopped believing. It delegitimizes the loss of faith. The loss of faith becomes a consequence of leaving the church, rather than its cause. This fits the mopologetic narrative nicely, which has it that since there isn't a legitimate reason to stop believing, something happens to us or we do something (we sin, lose the Spirit, let Satan lead us down the primrose path, etc.) which opens us up to making an illegitimate choice, ie: changing our minds about the truth of the Book of Mormon, the First Vision, etc.

I did some more digging into how Brodie’s loss of faith affected her, and have concluded Harper’s version is so inaccurate it makes me wonder if he just assumed losing her testimony was painful in the way you describe above. I really don't know what to think.

Newell Bringhurst wrote the definitive biography of Brodie, and in a 1989 Dialoue article (link below), he said her doubts began in her late teens and she was extremely frustrated by the fact that no one in her well-known Mormon family would discuss them with her, particularly her father. Her mother was a skeptic (who eventually committed suicide by lighting herself on fire) and she encouraged Brodie’s independent streak, but she felt so constrained by Mormonism herself she didn’t really talk about it with Brodie either.

Brodie’s lingering faith fell away completely when she entered the University of Chicago. According to Bringhurst, Brodie said:

the confining aspects of the Mormon religion dropped off within a few weeks . . . .

It was like taking off a hot coat in the summertime. The sense of liberation I had at
the University of Chicago was enormously exhilarating. I felt very quickly that I
could never go back to the old life, and I never did (F. Brodie 1975, 3 ).

That’s not to say Brodie’s relationship with and feelings about the Church were benign. According to Bringhurst, she was extremely conflicted about her Church heritage, and was often angry about what she perceived to be the Church's duplicitous behavior. She admits she wrote NMKMH in "a desperate effort to come to terms with my childhood."

However, in my opinion, none of that equates to Harper's claim about a "painful reorientation process." It appears the "reorientation" itself was actually exhilarating, and therefore, as I said, I am really conflicted about Harper's article.

Steven does seem to be using a priori incorrectly, to mean an argument which one assumes to be true, rather than as an argument which requires no experiential input to be cogent. The irony here is that I think that he assumes that the church is true, and cannot be otherwise, in his own condemntation of Brodie for what he perceives is her doing the exact opposite.

That's what I meant when I wrote that he approached his article assuming the First Vision actually happened. If Brodie's approach was "a priori," so was his.

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-cont ... N02_81.pdf