The Internet and the Future of Mormonism...

[_Mister Scratch]

Yes, I think that the internet can verify whether Joseph Smith had a vision. A few google clicks and suddenly you have a trove of information that you never got from Sundary School or the Ensign that allow you to reach an informed decision. I am confident that 9+ out of 10 persons, who do not have a lifetime of emotional and financial investment to defend, who assess the evidence for Joseph Smith now available on the internet will conclude that he never had a vision. No one was in the grove but him (though I doubt he ever actually went to the grove to pray), but the preponderance of evidence is heavy and one might conclude with 99% certainty that Joseph Smith did not, in fact, see God and Jesus in a vision.

Well on this score you're wrong in at least one case, and I'm quite certain this isn't the only case. As I've mentioned before, Dr. Lawrence Foster, a non-Mormon academic who studied Mormonism for 25-plus years, including going back and reading every issue of Dialogue since its inception in 1966, did conclude that Joseph Smith's vision could have occurred. Google clicks won't do the trick. That "nine out of ten people" don't conclude something (Google-assisted) isn't proof of anything. If I am not wrong, I also believe that even Dan Vogel is at least "open" on this question, at least from what I've read over the years from his many posts on FAIR. Dan has a hypothesis (beyond Brodie's "outright fraud"), but I don't believe he has completely ruled out that something like the First Vision could have occurred.

Very good Ray, you've cherry picked two anecdotes, both of which, however, only go as far as concluding Joseph Smith "could have saw something." I wonder, did Foster join the Church? Has Vogel resumed activity?

I remain confident that the vast, vast majority would decide against Joseph Smith given all the evidence and assuming an objective and open minded beginning position.

And No, this doesn't prove anything in terms of what really happened. But, if correct, it does demonstrate that the evidence against Joseph Smith is pretty overwhelming.

Of course, Ray's argument becomes even more shaky when you factor in all of the more disturbing Mormon stuff that people can learn about online: priesthood racism; Joseph Smith's polygamy; the Book of Abraham; Joseph Smith's face in the hate; Joseph Smith's use of the seer stone; Kolob; the SCMC; blood atonement; secret finances; the temple ceremony; baptisms for the dead; connection to masonry; etc., etc. Being on the fence about Joseph Smith's First Vision is pretty small potatoes, in my opinion. The "9+" people are going to be freaked out for a vast host of reasons. More simply, I believe that Guys' "9+" figure is right on the money.

[Guest]

The objective of any historian is to write history, not to make statements about personal beliefs.

Yes, and do read this carefully. In your very own words, then, it's rather obvious that you can't extract judgment on the possibility of an actual visitation by the Father by the historians you cite.

And none of them clearly implies the Father didn't really visit Joseph Smith. I've already quoted Foster, who wrote that it was possible. Did you miss that?

No. You miss the implication of your own sources.

The problem with your argument, Ray, is that the truth that historians are trying to get at brackets the question of truth that people are trying to get out of their personal search for God in religion.

You don't distinguish between personal belief, and serious scholarship which seeks to go beyond personal belief.

No. You don't distinguish between methodological naturalism and a scholar really leaving open the possibility of a literal First Vision.

[_Ray A]

It appears, that they are not actually convinced. They've voted with their feet, so to speak.

I wonder how many of the scholars you cite here have likewise voted with their feet?

I suspect all of them.

The failure of a single one of your anecdotes (including Jan Shipps) to cast their lot with Joseph Smith and Mormonism speaks volumes about how convinced they as to the validity of their truth claims.

Holding at abeyance final determination on an issue as part of an academic/scholarly investigative framework is a very different animal than personal conviction. You're conflating the two, and thus your argument is entirely flawed.

No, I'm not conflating the two. In fact I said that the objective of a historian is to look at facts, write history, regardless of personal beliefs. This objective, by the way, is not always achieved, as historians have to select what they write, and the selective process can be biased. Some historians are simply better than others. So in reality, some personal beliefs can enter historical writing and selection, but that shouldn't be the objective of a good historian. In their quest to get to the facts, it is imperitive to withhold personal belief, or to think that personal belief is really 100% accurate.

You seem to suggest they don't believe, but are doing this as some kind of "academic exercise in objectivity". Maybe some are. Scholars may remain uncommitted to a religion for many personal reasons that have nothing to do with whether or not visions and revelations actually occurred.

[_Mister Scratch]

It appears, that they are not actually convinced. They've voted with their feet, so to speak.

I wonder how many of the scholars you cite here have likewise voted with their feet?

I suspect all of them.

The failure of a single one of your anecdotes (including Jan Shipps) to cast their lot with Joseph Smith and Mormonism speaks volumes about how convinced they as to the validity of their truth claims.

Holding at abeyance final determination on an issue as part of an academic/scholarly investigative framework is a very different animal than personal conviction. You're conflating the two, and thus your argument is entirely flawed.

No, I'm not conflating the two. In fact I said that the objective of a historian is to look at facts, write history, regardless of personal beliefs. This objective, by the way, is not always achieved, as historians have to select what they write, and the selective process can be biased. Some historians are simply better than others. So in reality, some personal beliefs can enter historical writing and selection, but that shouldn't be the objective of a good historian. In their quest to get to the facts, it is imperitive to withhold personal belief, or to think that personal belief is really 100% accurate.

But this is not the objective for loyal LDS historians, as per BKP's orders in "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect." Remember? "Some kinds of truth aren't very useful." Your argument is dead in the water, Ray.

[_Ray A]

Of course, Ray's argument becomes even more shaky when you factor in all of the more disturbing Mormon stuff that people can learn about online: priesthood racism; Joseph Smith's polygamy; the Book of Abraham; Joseph Smith's face in the hate; Joseph Smith's use of the seer stone; Kolob; the SCMC; blood atonement; secret finances; the temple ceremony; baptisms for the dead; connection to masonry; etc., etc. Being on the fence about Joseph Smith's First Vision is pretty small potatoes, in my opinion. The "9+" people are going to be freaked out for a vast host of reasons. More simply, I believe that Guys' "9+" figure is right on the money.

Well, I'm reposting something Uncle Dale posted on FAIR on July 21, 2006 (apologies to MAD and D'unck):

QUOTE (hondo @ Jul 21 2006, 06:43 PM)
I think some members hide behind history to explain why they don't believe anymore, or at least superficially. History in other words isn't the only reason they don't believe.



[Uncle Dale responds:]

I think what you say is very often the case.

As I may have mentioned a time or two, I host a Solomon Spalding web-site and get
e-mail regarding that subject every day. It has been very, very rare that I've seen an
active LDS investigate that subject, and then lose their testimony. It has happened a
couple of times, but I think that is extremely unusual.

On the other hand, I frequently get communications from ex-members, or from
disgruntled members who are already "a leg and two arms" out of the Church. Those
sorts of folks suddenly become super-interested in the whole Book of Mormon authorship matter,
as though it were the most important thing in the world. But, as I said, that isn't what
moves previously faithful members out of the LDS Church.

What does? Here's my guesses, in order:

(1) Personal unhappiness, discomfort, embarrassment, hurt, insult, or criticism.

(2) Family problems -- troubles with non-LDS family members -- divorces, etc.

(3) Transgression -- a desire to live a less "holy" life, or less restricted life -- often
prefigured by secret experimentation in elements of an alternative lifestyle.

(4) Evangelism -- being convinced that another denomination is more "true" or
more "correct," or more "accepting, or more something...

(5) Seeing hypocrisy in ward/branch/stake leaders or prominent members. Seeing
"unworthy" members given seemingly inapproptiate callings, etc.

(6) Disagreements over doctrines, matters of history, conflicts in authority, etc.

Uncle Dale

Note number 6. Quite startling.

[_Ray A]

But this is not the objective for loyal LDS historians, as per BKP's orders in "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect." Remember? "Some kinds of truth aren't very useful." Your argument is dead in the water, Ray.

Is Boyd K. Packer a historian? What do you think Arrington was trying to do? How many LDS historians have really obeyed what Elder Packer said in 1981? You are obviously quite unfamiliar with the content of Dialogue in the early 1980s. The Church also advises members not to read anti-literature, yet FARMS constantly reviewed anti-literature, including the Tanners.

[_Mister Scratch]

But this is not the objective for loyal LDS historians, as per BKP's orders in "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect." Remember? "Some kinds of truth aren't very useful." Your argument is dead in the water, Ray.

Is Boyd K. Packer a historian?

How/why should that matter? He is an Apostle and therefore whatever he says is supposed to Trump everything else, as was implicit in the title of his talk.

What do you think Arrington was trying to do?

BKP's talk was given partly in an effort to curb in what Arrington had been doing during the "Camelot" era of the 1970s.

How many LDS historians have really obeyed what Elder Packer said in 1981?

Quite a few, notably Bill Hamblin. On the other hand, it is pretty easy to cite the ones who didn't heed Elder Packer's advice, since they've been excommunicated.

You are obviously quite unfamiliar with the content of Dialogue in the early 1980s. The Church also advises members not to read anti-literature, yet FARMS constantly reviewed anti-literature, including the Tanners.

And this proves that TBM historians are in favor of a "warts and all" history...how?

[_guy sajer]

[You seem to suggest they don't believe, but are doing this as some kind of "academic exercise in objectivity". Maybe some are. Scholars may remain uncommitted to a religion for many personal reasons that have nothing to do with whether or not visions and revelations actually occurred.

That's precisely what I'm suggesting. And I disagree, you are conflating academic objectivity with personal conviction.

Their acadmic objectivity does not appear to have crossed over to personal conviction. Absent their explicit testimony as to the status of their belief, we are left to infer it from their behavior. Their behavior is entirely consistent with the argument I have advanced--they have weighed the evidence (perhaps as objectively as one can), and not a single one has elected to cast his/her lot with Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church. In specific situations, there are reasons why this might be the case, even if one believes, but systematically across all data points indicates a more general phenomena--they do not find the evidence for Joseph Smith and Mormonism convincing.

[_Dan Vogel]

Yes, I think that the internet can verify whether Joseph Smith had a vision. A few google clicks and suddenly you have a trove of information that you never got from Sundary School or the Ensign that allow you to reach an informed decision. I am confident that 9+ out of 10 persons, who do not have a lifetime of emotional and financial investment to defend, who assess the evidence for Joseph Smith now available on the internet will conclude that he never had a vision. No one was in the grove but him (though I doubt he ever actually went to the grove to pray), but the preponderance of evidence is heavy and one might conclude with 99% certainty that Joseph Smith did not, in fact, see God and Jesus in a vision.

Well on this score you're wrong in at least one case, and I'm quite certain this isn't the only case. As I've mentioned before, Dr. Lawrence Foster, a non-Mormon academic who studied Mormonism for 25-plus years, including going back and reading every issue of Dialogue since its inception in 1966, did conclude that Joseph Smith's vision could have occurred. Google clicks won't do the trick. That "nine out of ten people" don't conclude something (Google-assisted) isn't proof of anything. If I am not wrong, I also believe that even Dan Vogel is at least "open" on this question, at least from what I've read over the years from his many posts on FAIR. Dan has a hypothesis (beyond Brodie's "outright fraud"), but I don't believe he has completely ruled out that something like the First Vision could have occurred.

Hi Ray,

My position on the First Vision is that something happened to Joseph Smith in 1820 (or 21), which converted him to Jesus. However, because Joseph Smith was so contradictory on the details, his later claims (probably exagerated to better compete with other visionaries drawn to his church) cannot be trusted. Since I believe the Book of Mormon contains autobiographical details, I look to it for clues as to the earliest form the First Vision took. In particular, Mormon's autobiography where he says at age 15 he "was visited of the Lord, and tasted and knew of the goodness of Jesus" (Mormon 1:15). I suggest that that was the seed from which Joseph Smith's First Vision evolved. I would also suggest Alma's three days of anguish followed by spiritual rebirth is inspired by Joseph Smith's own experience in 1820 (Alma 36). I also believe the 1820 experience was about forgiveness of sins and not about which church was true.

[_John Larsen]

Yes, I think that the internet can verify whether Joseph Smith had a vision. A few google clicks and suddenly you have a trove of information that you never got from Sundary School or the Ensign that allow you to reach an informed decision. I am confident that 9+ out of 10 persons, who do not have a lifetime of emotional and financial investment to defend, who assess the evidence for Joseph Smith now available on the internet will conclude that he never had a vision. No one was in the grove but him (though I doubt he ever actually went to the grove to pray), but the preponderance of evidence is heavy and one might conclude with 99% certainty that Joseph Smith did not, in fact, see God and Jesus in a vision.

Well on this score you're wrong in at least one case, and I'm quite certain this isn't the only case. As I've mentioned before, Dr. Lawrence Foster, a non-Mormon academic who studied Mormonism for 25-plus years, including going back and reading every issue of Dialogue since its inception in 1966, did conclude that Joseph Smith's vision could have occurred. Google clicks won't do the trick. That "nine out of ten people" don't conclude something (Google-assisted) isn't proof of anything. If I am not wrong, I also believe that even Dan Vogel is at least "open" on this question, at least from what I've read over the years from his many posts on FAIR. Dan has a hypothesis (beyond Brodie's "outright fraud"), but I don't believe he has completely ruled out that something like the First Vision could have occurred.

Hi Ray,

My position on the First Vision is that something happened to Joseph Smith in 1820 (or 21), which converted him to Jesus. However, because Joseph Smith was so contradictory on the details, his later claims (probably exagerated to better compete with other visionaries drawn to his church) cannot be trusted. Since I believe the Book of Mormon contains autobiographical details, I look to it for clues as to the earliest form the First Vision took. In particular, Mormon's autobiography where he says at age 15 he "was visited of the Lord, and tasted and knew of the goodness of Jesus" (Mormon 1:15). I suggest that that was the seed from which Joseph Smith's First Vision evolved. I would also suggest Alma's three days of anguish followed by spiritual rebirth is inspired by Joseph Smith's own experience in 1820 (Alma 36). I also believe the 1820 experience was about forgiveness of sins and not about which church was true.

I am reminded of Rodney Dangerfield's classic work, Back to School.

That is the problem with these boards. You go ahead and quote some authority, and bam, they rise up and throw in their 2 bits.

John