Our leaders

[_marg]

No EA, Nevo was making an argument for more than that. He said "It doesn't require me to keep an open mind about "magic stones." It requires that I be open to the possibility that Joseph actually had visions (a "seeric gift"), that he didn't simply make everything up." So nevo is talking about Smith having quite possibly "actual visions" an "actual seeric gift", in other words some sort of actual psychic ability to detect actual things hidden.

Nevo used Vogel simply to show that a famous critic like him accepts that people were convinced of Smith's ability to see treasure with his magic stone. In so far as Nevo did that, his use was proper.

Once again no, he was doing more than that. Read the quote I gave from Nevo "It requires that I be open to the possibility that Joseph actually had visions (a "seeric gift"), that he didn't simply make everything up."

If he didn't make it up, if it wasn't just by chance which would be making things up, if he actually had visions (seeric ability) then Nevo is saying that he believes Smith quite possibly did in actuality have such supernatural abilities.

Nevo isn't quoting anything that can be taken out of context. Nevo is actually even careful to point out what Vogel thinks. From the quote you can tell what option Vogel thinks is true.

And I can also see the purpose for Nevo using the quote, that purpose, acknowledge that Smith may indeed have had supernatural abilities, you fail to acknowledge.

Nevo is making it clear that Vogel does not think that Smith truly demonstrated his seeric gift. He's just using Vogel to get Smith past the hurdle of being a "self-deluded treasure seer" without any people who thought he was successful.

Once again... he's doing more than that. Nevo is arguing both that Smith believed he had actual abilities, and that there is evidence that in fact he did have such abilities, that people in his day believed he had such abilties and not only that but even Vogel supports such a notion.

Or he, like many people, thinks the Spalding theory sucks balls. One of the two.

My comment and criticism of Vogel had to do with his evalution of witness evidence on both sides and from that I'm drawing conclusions on his objectivity in the matter. My comment is not about whether the Spalding theory holds water.

He's (JAK's) a moron, a liar, and someone who is quite obviously plagiarizing frequently, usually when he sounds atypically coherent. That'd you'd condescend Nevo - someone who is often a bright, clear thinker - by berating his general "critical thinking skills" while praising someone like JAK is just too much.

Right, meanwhile read this thread again..read Nevo's obvious credulity. Regarding your comments on JAK, they show your immaturity that you would bring your feelings regarding him into this discussion.

Yes, I think Nevo is ultimately wrong in his judgment of Mormonism. And yes, I think he makes errors in argument, as demonstrated by my reply to what he said in this thread. That doesn't mean I think your general condescension of his ability to think rationally is appropriate. The problem is that you aren't very strong in the skills you are judging, which robs you of the meta-skill of being able to soundly make those judgments. If you were a better "critical thinker" you wouldn't be doing this.

So you think Nevo in this thread has demonstrated poor critical thinking but your objection is you don't like me saying so. Ok EA, meanwhile I've pointed it out, while you've taken my posts and used them to point out the same thing. So I guess you think you do have the critical thinking skills to do so. Whatever makes happy.

But to end this, Smith had no supernatural abilities, no actual... seeric ability or visions to find hidden objects and those who believe otherwise are gullible, even if they are speculating on it being a mere possibility. It simply is unreasonable, impractical to do so and a waste of people's time to do so.

[_EAllusion]

The notion Vogel supports is that cotemporaries of Smith thought he was successful as a treasure seer, which, in Vogel's view means he either was deceptive or actually had demonstrated ability to be a treasure seer. (Vogel thinks the former is the case, not the latter.) That's all Nevo uses Vogel to establish in his argument.

You then write this, "If Dan Vogel believes J. Smith had a seeric gift to find things, then he doesn't reject supernatural. I'm not impressed with Vogel's common sense/rational logical ability...

I don't respect his rational critical thinking ability. I also don't respect yours Nevo. You are great at citing and quoting but in all the years I've read your posts from 2 think.org I noticed your rational thinking or critical thinking was poor on those rare times you actually offered your own thoughts."
This earned a much deserved sarcastic reply from Nevo followed by our - *ahem* - interaction.

So you think Nevo in this thread has demonstrated poor critical thinking but your objection is you don't like me saying so.

I don't think a person occasionally making a poor argument or displaying poor reasoning in a given area makes them generally not a good "rational critical thinker" unworthy of respect. I respect two-time Nobel prize winning scientist Linus Pauling's "rational critical thinking" ability despite the fact that he was totally up in the night when it came to his Vitamin C crusade. That is to say, I'm willing to respect his rational thinking skills/common sense while being wary of his competence when it comes to his Vitamin C beliefs. I have a problem with your condescension of Nevo and Vogel given that 1) they generally do a much better job understanding arguments than you, or those you praise, and 2) you showed confusion about what exactly Nevo/Vogel were saying there. Also, the Spalding theory isn't all that great, and Vogel's understanding of witness evidence seems fine, which makes your willingness to dismiss Vogel's ability to think rationally on the grounds of his rejection of it all the more eyeroll worthy.

[_marg]

The notion Vogel supports is that cotemporaries of Smith thought he was successful as a treasure seer, which, in Vogel's view means he either was deceptive or actually had demonstrated ability to be a treasure seer. (Vogel thinks the former is the case, not the latter.) That's all Nevo uses Vogel to establish in his argument.

You then write this, "If Dan Vogel believes J. Smith had a seeric gift to find things, then he doesn't reject supernatural. I'm not impressed with Vogel's common sense/rational logical ability...

I don't respect his rational critical thinking ability. I also don't respect yours Nevo. You are great at citing and quoting but in all the years I've read your posts from 2 think.org I noticed your rational thinking or critical thinking was poor on those rare times you actually offered your own thoughts."
This earned a much deserved sarcastic reply from Nevo followed by our - *ahem* - interaction.

You are dishonest in discussion EA. I already pointed out to you that you omitted my words and that I gave my reasoning as to why I don't respect Vogel's reasoning. I wrote previously...

"I'm not impressed with Vogel's common sense/rational logical ability based upon his participation in the thread on this board dealing with Spalding in which he accepted the Book of Mormon witness statements but rejected the Spalding ones. He may be the nicest person, extremely hard worker, sincere but I don't respect his rational critical thinking ability."

So you think Nevo in this thread has demonstrated poor critical thinking but your objection is you don't like me saying so.

I don't think a person occasionally making a poor argument or displaying poor reasoning in a given area makes them generally not a good "rational critical thinker" unworthy of respect.

Well then this is a crucial area where we differ. When it comes to an issue such as Mormonism, I do look at motivation, lack of objectivity on one particular issue as likely indicative of other areas likewise being poorly reasoned about by a particular individual. I do think for example that Vogel may have been motivated to appeal to Mormons such that for one he'd rather take the position that Smith was sole author of Book of Mormon and he'd rather word what he writes to have appeal to Mormons and the church than not. And I do think it possible for example on this issue of whether Smith had actual seeric/psychic abilities that he worded it such that Mormons like Nevo would read into it their version which is in line with the Church.

I have a problem with your condescension of Nevo and Vogel given that 1) they generally do a much better job understanding arguments than you, or those you praise, and 2) you showed confusion about what exactly Nevo/Vogel were saying there. Also, the Spalding theory isn't all that great, and Vogel's understanding of witness evidence seems fine, which makes your willingness to dismiss Vogel's ability to think rationally on the grounds of his rejection of it all the more eyeroll worthy.

While I respect Vogel generally, more than I respect you by the way, and appreciate he's a hard worker/author in the field of Mormon history books, on this issue of who and how the Book of Mormon was written, I think he along with Brodie have done disservice to it. So I'm not impressed with anyone using Vogel to support their extraordinary claims regarding Mormonism such as Nevo has attempted to do in this thread, regarding Smith's "seeric" abilities. I've given Nevo an opportunity to deny his intent was to speculate that Smith did indeed have psychic ability and so far he's not responded to that opportunity. I appreciate Vogel doesn't take the supernatural position or speculate on that, however as I said his words appear to me to lack clarity on this and it seems to me Nevo is using his words to suggest that even Vogel doesn't dismiss Smith having special seeric abilities. That lack of clarity allows someone like nevo to use his words to support that perhaps Smith did indeed have supernatural seeric ability.

[_richardMdBorn]

Marg As far as JAK goes he's brilliant.

I’m amazed that you continue to assert this. The threads on the immaculate conception and the virgin birth prove the opposite. He finds it hard to stay on topic (to put it mildly) and he could not understand the difference between the two doctrines. They’re not hard to comprehend. See for example:

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... highlight=

[_Roger Morrison]

So, I made a mistake, "wrong again :-)". I misjudged your response, as I read it. I'm sorry you up-set so easily. "...butt out..." "...idiot..." Really??

From an old song, "...getting to know you...getting to know all about you..." Warm regards, Roger

You misjudged again, I'm not upset, are you?

No, not upset. Although, I must say, "I was somewhat surprised."

[_EAllusion]

You are dishonest in discussion EA. I already pointed out to you that you omitted my words and that I gave my reasoning as to why I don't respect Vogel's reasoning.

That's why I used an ellipses. I didn't change the context of what you wrote. I edited out stuff that was wasn't relevant to the part of the quote I wanted to highlight. That's to save space and concentrate on what is important. That's not dishonest; that's normal writing. Why you don't respect Vogel's ability to reason doesn't matter when I was interested in the mere fact that you do not respect it. I even acknowledge later in my post why you said that to make a different point, lest you worry I was implying some other reason.

it seems to me Nevo is using his words to suggest that even Vogel doesn't dismiss Smith having special seeric abilities.

Which is why Nevo wrote, "Since Vogel's worldview does not admit the supernatural, he rejects the former explanation [Smith having special seeric abilities] out of hand. I, however, prefer to keep an open mind :)"

Richard -

This thread:

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... c&start=42

should've been enough by itself. It clearly wasn't.

[_Nevo]

I do think for example that Vogel may have been motivated to appeal to Mormons such that for one he'd rather take the position that Smith was sole author of Book of Mormon and he'd rather word what he writes to have appeal to Mormons and the church than not.

If you were actually familiar with any of Vogel's work--for instance, his Joseph Smith bio, or his article, "The Validity of the Witnesses' Testimonies" in American Apocrypha, or his book Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon--you would realize how laughable this is. Call me a poor critical thinker, but I really don't think Vogel argues that Smith was the sole author of the Book of Mormon out of a desire to appeal to Mormons.

I've given Nevo an opportunity to deny his intent was to speculate that Smith did indeed have psychic ability and so far he's not responded to that opportunity.

I did speculate that Joseph Smith may have actually had some sort of seeric ability. In any case, I am persuaded that he believed he did, and that others did too. Is this so unreasonable?

[_Nevo]

Hopefully, this will clear up any confusion regarding Vogel's beliefs vis-a-vis Joseph Smith and the supernatural:

I believe that during his early career as a treasure seer, he was a charlatan but came to believe that he was, in fact, called of God and thereafter occasionally used deceit to bolster his religious message. I do not believe in real magicians, slippery treasures, bleeding ghosts, and so I regard Smith's discovery of the tail feather as an example of fraud. Nevertheless, there is a high degree of sincerity in Smith's career as a prophet, [and] his defense of God against deism and skepticism. His touching emotional outburst at the 1830 baptism of his father appears to have been genuine.

-- Dan Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, xv.

[_JAK]

Marg As far as JAK goes he's brilliant.

I’m amazed that you continue to assert this. The threads on the immaculate conception and the virgin birth prove the opposite. He finds it hard to stay on topic (to put it mildly) and he could not understand the difference between the two doctrines. They’re not hard to comprehend. See for example:

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... highlight=

You’re incorrect in your interpretation of what I stated in multiple posts.

I offered various links previously from our common denominator (the Internet) on this issue. It is marg who is correct not you, Richard.

Please review on topic:

Item
Item
Item
Item
Item
Items

Doctrinal claims on this issue are claims for which no evidence can be obtained to confirm those claims from the ancient past.

My analysis was quite on topic contrary to your present assertion here.

Also, contrary to your analysis, claims prove nothing as you argue here. We can assess and access only that which doctrine-makers have claimed over hundreds of years. We cannot assess the validity of “sin” or the absence of it as doctrines claim.

Not only are there multiple doctrines, there are multiple interpretations which lead to further doctrines as made by various religious groups and pundits for those groups.

It is you who appear not to comprehend that reality regarding evolution of doctrines.

[_marg]

I do think for example that Vogel may have been motivated to appeal to Mormons such that for one he'd rather take the position that Smith was sole author of Book of Mormon and he'd rather word what he writes to have appeal to Mormons and the church than not.

If you were actually familiar with any of Vogel's work--for instance, his Joseph Smith bio, or his article, "The Validity of the Witnesses' Testimonies" in American Apocrypha, or his book Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon--you would realize how laughable this is. Call me a poor critical thinker, but I really don't think Vogel argues that Smith was the sole author of the Book of Mormon out of a desire to appeal to Mormons.

What I am familiar with is his participation on this board in the Spalding discussion and of his evaluation of witnesses on both sides. I have his book on J. smith but haven't read fully, just bits and pieces, so that means little. I have read some of his posts in previous years when he first started to post on FAIR. I'm quite aware he doesn't argue or write his books with any assumption of the supernatural. I'm quite aware that some critics don't respect his thinking on Smith and he's fully aware of that as well based on his participation on the exmormon brd. Some people I know sympathize with where he is coming from but think he will end up regretting his position on the Spalding theory. Regarding your last sentence Vogel himself may not fully appreciate why he takes the position he does regarding Spalding witnesses and Book of Mormon witnesses. He's had a lifetime of indoctrination, family who are still members and consequently may not fully appreciatiate his (in my opinion) lack of objectivity.

I've given Nevo an opportunity to deny his intent was to speculate that Smith did indeed have psychic ability and so far he's not responded to that opportunity.

I did speculate that Joseph Smith may have actually had some sort of seeric ability. In any case, I am persuaded that he believed he did, and that others did too. Is this so unreasonable?

It is reasonable to assume Smith may have thought he had supernatural abilities, personally I think he was a deist maybe even atheist and he was fully aware of the entire con, but we won't go there. It is reasonable to assume others thought he had supernatural special abilities. But Nevo, based on all the data available, of Smith, of religion generally, of con men, of natural physical laws, just to name some reasons it is not reasonable to assume Smith did in fact have actual seeric ability. You are unable to be objective about this. I respect that you are not beating around the bush on this, playing word and/or philosophical games and are upfront that you think Smith may have had in actuality "seeric ability".