The Internet and the Future of Mormonism...

[_moksha]

It sounds like Ballard is unleashing the Morgbots. Hysteria happens.

You shall know them by their heads swiveling as they intone, "I - know - the - Church - is - true".

I think this is an exciting development. It will enliven these forums if they actually take him up on his suggestion.

[_Infymus]

I talk to God. That is why this board can be very amusing. To compare it is like dozens of people producing extensive evidence that a man never existed, never lived, and discounting all the witnesses that said he did......when I talked with him last night.

Wait a minute, in a prior thread on this board, you claimed he talked to YOU.

Beyond you talking to HIM, doesn't make the vision any more true.

We both talk.........that's how conversations work.....did you honestly think you caught something there?

Ok, I think what we're trying to get here is... Is God physically talking to you or are you getting sensations under your nipples?

[_Ray A]

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.

[_guy sajer]

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.

[_ozemc]

I don't think therer's any doubt that the internet hurts Mormonism. For decades, the Church kept members under control in part by controlling information. It can no longer do that (though it will try here and there to discourage members from seeking out critical voices). Information is power . . . and freedom.

The Internet only hurt the profoundly ignorant. All of this information was available in hardcopy long before the Internet. I don't know what you mean by "critical voices". I think it would be better described as "bitter, angry voices".

Those who form their opinions from "the Internet" are afficlited with "Scratch-o-mania".

Information is power? Yeah, verily. You want "freedom"? Do you think "the Internet" can verify whether Joseph actually had a vision?

Well, no, of course not.

But, there wll be (and are) articles about Joseph's life that are very unflattering, such as his money-digging adventures, and other stories that come from contemporaneous authors that will cause some to question his credibility.

[_Ray A]

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?

No, and No. That should speak even more about their willingness to at least remain open to the possibility.

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.

I don't agree. For a start "most" don't examine this in much detail, and of the scholars who have, most of them have referred to this in terms of "the prophet puzzle". It was non-Mormon historian Jan Shipps who called for historians to go beyond the simple "prophet/fraud" hypothesis, and Brodie psychobiography. You can read some reviews here: http://www.signaturebooks.com/reviews/prophet.htm

You would have some case to make if you wanted to prove that the "vast majority" would decide against Joseph Smith, because the vast majority of scholars who have studied this, have not "decided against Joseph Smith". I refer to one review:

In the editor's brief but pointed introduction, Waterman quotes Jan Shipps' now-popular admonition that the "mystery of Mormonism cannot be solved until we solve the mystery of Joseph Smith" (x). While no one in this volume claims to have resolved the "prophet puzzle" (that nomenclature is Shipps'), it is to the credit of the editor and each of these contributors that this single volume brings together under one cover a most valuable set of views that will comprise new grist for the mills of the grinding of new grain on this subject which will almost certainly bring to light a prompt investigation of even greater complexities and wrinkles in the character and face of the Mormon founder/prophet. This single volume will be an indispensable volume to bring new comers to the topic and problem up-to-speed in a relative hurry. All the interpreters have transcended—each in his or her own style—the old, simplistic dichotomy of either "fraud" or "prophet of God," and most of them were carefully self-conscious and self-critical in their efforts to do so. It is and will continue to be a valuable, substantive contribution on the matter.

So among the experts, how many have actually "decided against Joseph Smith"? Most remain cautious, and are prepared to remain aloof from the simple "prophet/fraud" dichotomy (and I'm not aware that Shipps herself has "concluded" anything). Those who have decided against him could also be accused of having other "emotional investments", such as a belief in Christianity. Can they prove that Christ was the Son of God? Or communed with God? Was resurrected? Can critics disprove this? Others "emotionally invested" could include "devil's advocate" B.H. Roberts, and historian D. Michael Quinn, but neither "decided against Joseph Smith". It's not coincidental that those who have done the most study are not prepared to give simple pronouncements, like many "Google scholars". I would suggest that many of them may be "emotionally invested" in disproving Mormonism, and rush to hasty conclusions. And this is what you suggest, that anyone, through a few hours, days, or weeks of Googling, can "find the truth".

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.

I don't think it's overwhelming at all, and I'm talking about the First Vision. Even later embellishments don't disprove the vision. The fact is that even among generally disbelieving scholars (no, I'm quite sure Foster would not endorse Mormonism in toto), there is no rush to shout "fraud!", because the evidence for or against is often ambiguous. This was noted by Vogel who, though developing another controversial theory, was unwilling to accept previous simplistic interpretations.

[_Infymus]

[Telestial-worthy graphic gesture deleted]

You stinkin mods!

Ok, if you want to see a "Telestial-worthy graphic gesture", you can click here:

http://www.mormoncurtain.com/farkin/ballard_flip.jpg

Be careful! The spirit just might get sucked out of the room.

[_Gadianton]

I think Ray is moving the goal posts in his debate with Guy. Ray says,

So among the experts, how many have actually "decided against Joseph Smith"? Most remain cautious, and are prepared to remain aloof from the simple "prophet/fraud" dichotomy (and I'm not aware that Shipps herself has "concluded" anything

But what is the object of these historians? Is it to figure out whether or not Joseph Smith saw the man-God and his Son in the flesh? Isn't it uncommon -- as our resident academics like Trever remind us -- for historians to be interested in whether or not Joseph Smith really saw God or whether Joshua really made the sun stand still? Ray cites,

All the interpreters have transcended—each in his or her own style—the old, simplistic dichotomy of either "fraud" or "prophet of God," and most of them were carefully self-conscious and self-critical in their efforts to do so. It is and will continue to be a valuable, substantive contribution on the matter.

One can transcend the simplistic notion of "fraud" and "prophet" out of dedication to the craft of historiography without lending even the slightest bit of credibility to the notion that Joseph Smith actually saw the Lord. And much for the same reasons we can read the redactors of Deuteronomy without seeing a bunch of wicked priests trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the community of Israel and perpetrate a fraud. Nothing you've cited clearly implies that any non-LDS scholars think the Father really visited Smith.

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.

[_Ray A]

But what is the object of these historians? Is it to figure out whether or not Joseph Smith saw the man-God and his Son in the flesh? Isn't it uncommon -- as our resident academics like Trever remind us -- for historians to be interested in whether or not Joseph Smith really saw God or whether Joshua really made the sun stand still?

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

One can transcend the simplistic notion of "fraud" and "prophet" out of dedication to the craft of historiography without lending even the slightest bit of credibility to the notion that Joseph Smith actually saw the Lord. And much for the same reasons we can read the redactors of Deuteronomy without seeing a bunch of wicked priests trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the community of Israel and perpetrate a fraud. Nothing you've cited clearly implies that any non-LDS scholars think the Father really visited Smith.

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?

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.

No, Gad, the problem is that people like you "know" there is no life after death (just like you "know" the FV didn't occur), when in fact no serious scholar of this subject has ever drawn that "conclusion". Not even Dr. Blackmore (the "Queen of skeptics"), who stated her personal opinion, but admitted there was NO conclusive evidence for her non-belief.

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

[_guy sajer]

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?

No, and No. That should speak even more about their willingness to at least remain open to the possibility.

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.