The Mormon Apologist's Modus Operandi

[_Thama]

But you base this assessment of the weight of their story on a totally uninformed evaluation of its historical backdrop, which means it's simply made up. That means nothing to me.

I don't base this assessment on history at all, but rather human nature and psychology. Your only response is a shallow, romantic notion of the deathbed confession.

Mak... how do you know what foundation Thama uses for hi evaluation?

Seriously... talk about jumping to conclusions. And I thought he'd want to avoid being a caricature of the OP.

[_beastie]

Here's another ringing endorsement of one of the character of the witnesses:

After Oliver Cowdery had been taken by a State warrant for stealing, and the stolen property found ... in which nefarious transaction John Whitmer had also participated. Oliver Cowdery stole the property, conveyed it to John Whitmer ... Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Lyman E. Johnson, united with a gang of counterfeiters, thieves, liars, and blacklegs of the deepest dye, to deceive, cheat, and defraud the saints out of their property....

During the full career of Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer's bogus money business, it got abroad into the world that they were engaged in it.... We have evidence of a very strong character that you are at this very time engaged with a gang of counterfeiters, coiners, and blacklegs,... we will put you from the county of Caldwell: so help us God

Sidney Rigdon,
1838 quotation
published in:
US Senate Document 189

http://thedigitalvoice.com/enigma/essays/rodsmn04.htm

[Alf'Omega]

No, I don't think so. There are multiple accounts of similar events, and depending on which accounts you believe, you'll make conclusions which favor whatever conclusion you'd like to draw.

But you clearly aren't basing your guesses on variant historical accounts. You're basing them on the impression inside your head. Besides, the events to which I refer are rather firmly established historical events.

If you say so.

In other words, what you're calling "historiography" I'm calling "mythology." After all, I imagine you'd call the first vision "history" (although I wonder which version).

I'm not trying to obfuscate or evade. I'm trying to reconcile the lore with observable reality.

And my point is that you refuse to observe either. You are quite literally imagining the past. You betray very little, if any, familiarity with the history of Joseph Smith and the Latter-day Saints. You can't build an evaluation of his motivations and intentions if the entire scenario only exists inside your head.

OMG... dude, you need to stop talking as if you were there to observe it.

Of course I'm imagining the past. You are too, aren't you?

I am the only one in this exchange whose ideas coincide with rational thought (which excludes supernatural ideas).

I never claimed I had the correct answer to the puzzle or was stating fact; I am just speculating. I'll leave the wild assertions of facts to the Mormons. But let me tell you something: believing the guy was a scam artist who was afraid for his life if he didn't keep quiet about his past mistakes is far easier than believing he was some fictional, capricious god's mouthpiece on earth.

Only if you presuppose the supernatural is impossible. Since natural laws, by definition, don't apply to the supernatural, you can only claim this based off of subjective personal experience.

Um, I never said the supernatural was impossible, but it isn't observable or verifiable, so my default position is to regard such claims as fiction. Show me some proof that the supernatural exists, and I'll reconsider my position.

Here’s news flash for you: your claims are based off of subjective personal experience, too. Whoa… I know, huh? Trippy.

At this point, I have no more reason to believe what Joe Smith had to say about his experiences and god as I do that the tooth fairy leaves money under children's pillows in the night. Damn subjectivity!

And sorry, but given you're the kind of guy who believes in angels, god visions, and other supernatural events, I don't think you're in any position to determine what's make believe and what isn't.

Straw man. I'm discussing the interpretation of historical documents (not mythology), and I am far more qualified to discuss historical methodologies than you. This tree you're barking up is utterly irrelevant, and I'll thank you to stop pretending assessing the historical backdrop of Smith's actions is somehow associated with mythology.

Well here's another news flash for you: I wasn't discussing the interpretation of historical documents. I was discussing what I was speculating was the mind set of the guy who started an obvious fraud. You addressed my post first, remember?

So maybe you'd like to step away from the strawman.

As for my "naïveté regarding Joseph Smith's life," let me address it now: you're correct; I could know a lot more. Guilty as charged. The problem is, once a person comes out with a story "when I was 14, I went into the forest and saw god," I'm beyond giving that person any more credit than the original bogus story deserves.

Utterly irrelevant. Your disbelief regarding his claims has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on establishing a motivation for his very real and very historical actions. Don't bring this straw man up again or I'm through with this discussion.

Give me a break. It's entirely relevant. If you think it's a strawman, it’s because you want to control the conversation. I said what I thought based on the fact that there was a guy who created a church that is logically patently false. It's that simple. I started out explaining why I didn't think he was a pious fraud, period. And I easily and readily admit, I could be wrong (I wonder if that’s possible for you).

But your "established historic facts" are window dressing that keep you distracted from the central issue, which is that the church is a bogus man-made thing, the only thing that's really important to the discussion (as to whether Joe really believed is BS or knew it was crap).

Look, I'm not forcing you to talk about it. You responded to my post, remember? If you don't want to talk anymore, that’s ok. I'll survive.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The proof is in the pudding:

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/review/

If there were "non sympathizers" among the peer reviewers, I'm confident that the finished product would look very different. But, your goal has never been balance and fairness, so that's that.

By which Scratch admits that he has no actual knowledge of the peer review process itself. He simply thinks that the FARMS Review ought not to be what it is, but ought to be what he would like it to be, and concludes, on that basis, that the peer review process is rigged.

Readers can see for themselves:

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/review/

Absolutely!

I don't even need to defer to the phantom "fair-minded readers" you're always alluding to. I can name two actual people---Dr. Shades and Trevor, both of whom you yourself have praised for their "fairness," and both of whom side with my take on the Review. Trevor might disagree with the overall force, tenor, and word-choice of my assessment, but I think he'd agree generally that you guys have embraced an "attack dog" mentality. And Dr. Shades has echoed my take using almost verbatim language.

With all due respect for Shades, I don't grant his opinion on this matter much weight.

I give somewhat more to Trevor's, but, as you say, he's much less absolutist in his criticism than you are.

Look, I don't deny for a moment that there are, and will be, those who dislike the FARMS Review. Especially among those who disagree with its overall stance. That goes with the territory. The Review deals with controversial matters, and it does so from a pronounced position and in an often (though not always) forceful style, with an ironic and satirical bent. But many people like the Review -- including people whose opinions I value.

If you want to persuade people that "fair minded" readers (non-TBMs, presumably) see the Review the way you claim they will/do, you ought to cite actual people. Heck, even apologist sympathizers like Richard Bushman have chided you for your belligerence. You don't have a case here at all.

Please refresh my memory about Richard's comment. Incidentally, I'll be lecturing for him in one of his classes down there in Claremont next March. We just set that up yesterday.

I'm not going to cite names for you, but I've received very positive comments about the Review from a number of reputable historians and other scholars, to say nothing of ordinary readers (one of whom, a complete stranger, stopped me at the airport last week, to make some embarrassingly positive comments about the Review and my writing.) Some specifically get a kick out of its style and sense of humor.

Well, you don't know this for certain. For all you know, I *have* written for the Review, or I'm friends with one of the peer reviewers, etc. Best not to make assumptions, Dr. Peterson.

I'm quite confident that you haven't written for us. But, even if you had, how would that qualify you to make any comments about the overall peer review system that we run? You would only know what went on between you and me (or, perhaps, between yourself and one of my other editors). You would know nothing, thereby, about the identities of any of the other peer reviewers (and, very possibly, not even the identities of those who reviewed your own piece), and you would know nothing about their interactions with me, which are confidential.

The same would be true if you were a friend of one of our peer reviewers. (D you have friends?) Knowing one would identify none of the others. Knowing what he said would tell you nothing about any of the others, nor about their interactions with the Review's editors.

Please try to make at least minimal sense.

The bad parts of the Review persist, probably due in part to your malign influence.

LOL. I certainly hope so!

Boo!

[_beastie]

And yet another ringing endorsement:

Elders' Journal, Vol.1, No.4, p.59
Granny Parrish had a few others who acted as lackeys, such as Martin Harris, Joseph Coe, Cyrus P. Smalling, etc. but they are so far beneath contempt that a notice of them would be too great a sacrifice for a gentleman to make.
Elders' Journal, Vol.1, No.4, p.59
Having said so much, we leave this hopeful company in the new bond of union which they have formed with the priests. While they were held under restraints by the Church and had to behave with a degree of propriety, at least, the priests manifested the greatest opposition to them. But no sooner were they excluded from the fellowship of the Church and gave loose to all kind of abominations, swearing, lying, cheating, swindling, drinking with every species of debauchery, then the priests began to extol them to the heavens for their piety and virtue and made friends with them and called them the finest fellows in the world.

by the way, note, yet again, the LDS tendency to try and insult men by calling them women (ie, "Granny Parrish", also referred to as Mamma Parrish in the essay)

[Tator]

So let’s sum up the witness angle/pious fraud angle.

1) The concept of Pious Fraud predates Vogel’s use of the idea. Paul H. Dunn is a great example of a pious fraud. There can be no dispute that pious frauds exist. Hence, it is a legitimate concept, whether or not one agrees with its application to Joseph Smith.
2) Some frauds are successful in that they are never exposed in this lifetime. Even Will concedes this point (see “judgment day”)
3) Anyone engaged in a fraud weighs the pros and cons of exposing the fraud. If the witnesses were part of a fraud, they would have to weigh the reaction of the people they had “duped” as part of the cost of exposing the fraud. As time passed, and the sacrifices involved by believers increased, the likelihood of a violent reaction by duped believers against known perpetrators of a fraud also increased. Also weighed in would be whether or not the conspirators actually were "pious frauds", and believed in the greater good of their mission, which they would not want to destroy.
4) Joseph Smith and other church leaders described the three witnesses as: too mean to mention and below warrant of notice, braying ass, having a lying, deceptive spirit, given to all sorts of malicious and criminal behavior including abominations, lying, cheating, swindling, and all kinds of debauchery, counterfeiters, thieves, liars, and blacklegs, scoundrels of the deepest degree.

[_Morrissey]

You're confusing skepticism of your scenario for ignorance of the facts. Hell, the Witnesses are one of the best arguments you have. They just don't carry as much weight, nor is their story as conveniently convincing, as you'd like it to be.

But you base this assessment of the weight of their story on a totally uninformed evaluation of its historical backdrop, which means it's simply made up. That means nothing to me.

Mak... how do you know what foundation Thama uses for hi evaluation?

As I've learned debating with Mak, he tends to portray disagreement with him, his methods, and his conclusions as evidence of bad faith, intellectual dishonesty, lack of reasoning skills, or some other character flaw. He did it with me, he's doing it with Schmo, and here he's doing it with Thama.

Caveat emptor.

[_maklelan]

If you say so.

Oh, well played.

OMG... dude, you need to stop talking as if you were there to observe it.

I have a much better perspective than you.

Of course I'm imagining the past. You are too, aren't you?

I'm reconstructing it using objective methods of historical inquiry.

I am the only one in this exchange whose ideas coincide with rational thought (which excludes supernatural ideas).

Again you presume to insist the viability of the supernatural is a legitimate aspect of an evaluation of the motivations for Joseph Smith's actions. I'm done with this conversation.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Along with an incredibly naïve set of assumptions about when, how, how often, and why people lie.

Take for example, the James Strang witnesses:

Who says that that the Strangite witnesses were lying?

I don't think they were.

There really were plates there, and they really saw them dug up out of the ground.

James J. Strang translated metallic plates and eleven witnesses signed testimonies that they saw the plates—none ever denied their testimony. The testimony of the Voree Plates is published in the Revelations of James J. Strang; and the testimony to the Book of the Law of the Lord is published in front of that law.

If one set of witnesses is telling the truth, the other is lying.

On what basis do you make that claim?

In any case, it establishes that people do lie about these things, and they are capable of engaging in a conspiracy, as it were, to lie about these things.

Again, why do you assume that the Strangite witnesses were lying?

The Strangite plates and witnesses are not closely comparable to those of Joseph Smith. Here's something I wrote about them for the 2006 FAIR conference. I haven't bothered to include the footnotes:

Forgery is the virtually certain explanation for the two sets of inscribed metal plates that James Jesse Strang said he had found in Wisconsin and Michigan (between 1845 and 1849) and translated. Strang, who claimed to have a letter of appointment from Joseph Smith, announced himself as Joseph Smith's successor and was clearly seeking to imitate the Prophet. That his plates really existed is beyond serious dispute. The first set, the three "Voree" or "Rajah Manchou" plates, were dug up by four "witnesses" whom Strang had brought to the appropriate site. Inscribed on both sides with illustrations and "writing," the Rajah Manchou plates were roughly 1.5 by 2.75 inches in size -- small enough to fit in the palm of a hand or to carry in a pocket. Among the many who saw them was Stephen Post, who reported that they were brass and, indeed, that they resembled the French brass used in familiar kitchen kettles. "With all the faith & confidence that I could exercise," he wrote, "all that I could realize was that Strang made the plates himself, or at least that it was possible that he made them." One not altogether reliable source reports that most of the four witnesses to the Rajah Manchou plates ultimately repudiated their testimonies. The eighteen "Plates of Laban," likewise of brass and each about 7 3/8 by 9 inches, were first mentioned in 1849 and, in 1851, were seen by seven witnesses. Their testimony appeared at the front of The Book of the Law of the Lord, which Strang said he translated from the "Plates of Laban." (Work on the translation seems to have begun at least as early as April 1849. An 84-page version appeared in 1851; by 1856, it had reached 350 pages.) The statement of Strang's witnesses speaks of seeing the plates, but mentions nothing of any miraculous character. Nor did Strang supply any second set of corroborating testimony comparable to that of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon. One of the witnesses to the "Plates of Laban," Samuel P. Bacon, eventually denied the inspiration of Strang's movement and denounced it as mere "human invention." Another, Samuel Graham, later claimed that he had assisted Strang in the fabrication of the "Plates of Laban." The well-read Strang had been an editor and lawyer before his brief affiliation with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and his subsequent career as a schismatic leader. Thus, Strang's plates were much less numerous than those associated with Joseph Smith, his witnesses saw nothing supernatural, his translation required the better part of a decade rather than a little more than two months, and, unlike the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, Strang's witnesses did not remain faithful to their testimonies. Milo Quaife, in his early, standard biography of Strang, reflected that "It is quite conceivable that Strang's angelic visitations may have had only a subjective existence in the brain of the man who reported them. But the metallic plates possessed a very material objective reality." If we are unwilling to accept The Book of the Law of the Lord as authentically divine, he says, "we can hardly escape the conclusion . . . that Strang knowingly fabricated and planted them for the purpose of duping his credulous followers" and, accordingly, that "Strang's prophetic career was a false and impudent imposture." Roger Van Noord, Strang's most recent biographer, concludes that, "Based on the evidence, it is probable that Strang -- or someone under his direction -- manufactured the letter of appointment and the brass plates to support his claim to be a prophet and to sell land at Voree. If this scenario is correct, Strang's advocacy of himself as a prophet was more than suspect, but no psychological delusion."

[_maklelan]

As I've learned debating with Mak, he tends to portray disagreement with him, his methods, and his conclusions as evidence of bad faith, intellectual dishonesty, lack of reasoning skills, or some other character flaw. He did it with me, he's doing it with Schmo, and here he's doing it with Thama.

Caveat emptor.

A poor substitute for engaging the issues with your assessment. If you take issue with a specific aspect of my criticisms then address it, but this generalized "Gosh, he always does this" doesn't mean jack to me. Either engage the issue or go away.