DiscussMormonism.com

I recently discovered this radio program via an itunes "Mormon" search. His shows from the past 3 years are available as podcasts.

He broadcasts his show on sunday nights for two hours, the last hour being call ins. He covers all of our favorite topics, including Polygamy, First Vision Accounts, Adam-God, Was Jesus Married, The Curse of Cain, etc.. etc..

He's an interesting character. A faithful member who agrees with the theory of evolution (In that God created the bodies of men by allowing evolution) and he believes that the Book of Mormon was given to inspire faith but is not an actual historical document.

I've enjoyed about 8 hours worth of his podcasts so far. The callers are always interesting. One of them that calls in often is a guy who thinks hes the new prophet and is going to fix the Church. He operates out of Mexico and has one follower, lol.

One of the best ones was an interview with author Carmen Hardy. He wrote a book entitled "Doing the Works of Abraham: Mormon Polygamy". A well educated man whos book is mainly about the historical documents and journals from the time the church practiced polygamy. Both he and Van have spent alot of time in the Church archives and they had a great discussion on the subject.
The podcast from Feb. 08 about Brigham Youngs teaching on Adam God was also very good, discussing what exactly was said and what the other brethren thought of it.

For those interested he has the podcasts available on his website at http://www.mormonmiscellaneous.com/. Also featured on the site is an archive of his Notecards that feature information on various gospel topics with historical dates and events. Lots of fun.

Interviews of interest Include Helen Whitney, Brent Ashworth, and others.

Have any of you ever heard his show, or called in to it?
.
.
.
.

I've heard it many times and called in once.

His slow, droning, monotone voice makes the program nearly impossible to listen to. What's most frustrating of all is when he plays ignorant and moves on to the next caller when he can't answer a challenge.

I've known about Van Hale for a long time, but don't really know much about his views other than the Book of Mormon. He has sometimes posted on MAD, and I take it he's possibly an occasional lurker there. Definitely not a critic, and still in a sort of no-man's land in regard to his public unorthodox views of the Book of Mormon (which I think many may hold or flirt with privately). He's criticised by both apologists and critics.

In a way I see him as the future of Mormonism, maybe a very distant future (but who knows?), because inevitably Mormons are going to have to face the harsh reality that the Book of Mormon isn't history, in my opinion. I think he's certainly a "gentler" face of Mormonism, maybe because of his non-literal views.

He's what I'd call a "progressive Mormon", that is, finally catching up to an idea I think best summed up by Charles Darwin:

"At the present day (ca. 1872) the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons. But it cannot be doubted that Hindoos, Mahomadans and others might argue in the same manner and with equal force in favor of the existence of one God, or of many Gods, or as with the Buddists of no God...This argument would be a valid one if all men of all races had the same inward conviction of the existence of one God: but we know that this is very far from being the case. Therefore I cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings are of any weight as evidence of what really exists."

"Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps as inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake."

And:

"Whilst on board the Beagle (October 1836-January 1839) I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament; from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian."

And:

"Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but at last was complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct."

Darwin was not an atheist, by the way, but agnostic, and on the question of God he wrote that famous dictum that a dog might as well contemplate the mind of Newton.

Some things are, and will remain unknowable to us, so the question is what is Hale really after? Another kind of "certainty"? Another Half-Way House like John Dehlin? I'm not familiar enough with his views on other controversial Mormon-related subjects to know.

Dr. Shades wrote:I've heard it many times and called in once.

His slow, droning, monotone voice makes the program nearly impossible to listen to. What's most frustrating of all is when he plays ignorant and moves on to the next caller when he can't answer a challenge.

What was your call about? And was it within the last three years? Your call might be on one of the podcasts.

I agree that at first his voice was a bit.... monotonous. Hes not the most charasmatic speaker. What is appealing is his grasp of Church history, he brings quite a bit of depth to the topics he discussus. I think that makes up for the lack of personality. Also he handles aggressive callers very well, wringing an interesting discussion out of a caller another may have hung up on.

I will agree with you though that when asked a question he can't answer he has a bad way of avoiding the question and changing the subject. I've heard that done a few times.

Ray,

Some things are, and will remain unknowable to us, so the question is what is Hale really after? Another kind of "certainty"? Another Half-Way House like John Dehlin? I'm not familiar enough with his views on other controversial Mormon-related subjects to know.

I don't know that the man is "after" anything. Even with his incorrect views on the Book of Mormon and evolution, he is faithful and is genuinely interested in his topics. He doesn't promote his views on the Book of Mormon, I think knowing that he is alone in his view, and he doesent promote his evolution theory either. His interest seems to be in early church documents and the views expressed in those writings.

Its really more of a history show that happens to focus on the theological history of Mormons. For example, when polygamy is discussed they find early journal entries, books written on the subject outside of Mormonism from the same time period, a letter written by Joseph Smith on the subject, etc.....

Gazelam wrote: He doesn't promote his views on the Book of Mormon

I'm sure he doesn't Gaz, it's just all over his website and in public statements:

"I'm not persuaded that the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient history." (Public statement made in 2005)

"I am not persuaded that the detail in the Book of Mormon is detail pertaining to people that anciently lived on the Americas." (Public statement made in 2005)

I do believe that to prove the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient history would virtually prove that it is of supernatural origin. After all, the fact is that in 1829 there was no humanly possible means for anyone to produce an accurate history of the ancient Americas. Even if an ancient record were found, no one could have translated it. The only rational conclusion is that to prove the Book of Mormon accurate ancient history would indeed prove Joseph Smith obtained it through supernatural means, since that would not have been possible by natural means. And, for the first time ever, we would have impirical [sic] proof for the claims of a prophet. I, along with all other LDS, would prefer such unlikely impirical [sic] proof, but I consider the prospect unrealistic. (Public statement made in 2005, emphasis added)

"The purpose of the Book of Mormon is entirely religious - to promulgate Christianity as a faith partially lost but restored through a prophet in latter days. There is no suggestion in the Book of Mormon that its purpose was to present ancient history, unknowable in 1830, later to be confirmed by historical, archeological, anthropological or genetic research to prove Joseph Smith's source could only have been God.' (Public statement made in 2005)

Gazelam wrote:I think knowing that he is alone in his view

I think he knows he's not alone in this view, but I'm sure he realises it's a minority view in Mormonism, where the Book of Mormon is viewed as either "[historically]true", or "the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind". That's why RFM gets over 150,000 hits per day, because the Church insists there's "no middle ground".

Gazelam wrote: Its really more of a history show that happens to focus on the theological history of Mormons. For example, when polygamy is discussed they find early journal entries, books written on the subject outside of Mormonism from the same time period, a letter written by Joseph Smith on the subject, etc.....

Not supported by the quotes I gave above.

Dr. Shades wrote:I've heard it many times and called in once.

His slow, droning, monotone voice makes the program nearly impossible to listen to. What's most frustrating of all is when he plays ignorant and moves on to the next caller when he can't answer a challenge.

What we need is a similar show, but one that is not vested in the truth of Mormonism. One way or another. That would be great.

I like Randy Jordan's take on VH:

After debating Mopologists for about seven years, I realized that those who refused to admit that Mormonism is a demonstrable fraud are incorrigible brainwashed fanatics, and basically dishonest people. I have helped to "de-Mormonize" a few former TBMs (such as Steve Lowther, for instance, who started out on ARM as an apologist, but by 2002, came to the Ex-Mormon conference to hear me and others speak). But for the most part, the TBMs who debate Mormonism on the 'net are rabid fanatics who are unwilling or mentally or emotionally incapable of altering their worldview when presented with facts which would make "normal" people do so. in my opinion, Van Hale is one of those people.

But for the most part, the TBMs who debate Mormonism on the 'net are rabid fanatics

I had my shots