Dan Vogel wrote:
Notice how you don’t really respond to my comment. You only attack. And you completely misrepresent the situation. Of course, I don’t accept Mormon testimony at face value. This is you straw man, myth-making, misperception, or whatever. But it’s getting predictable and boring. If you recall, I was the one quoting methodology books in support of my handling of the documents. I showed that not only were there multiple testimony with regard to Joseph Smith’s method of translation, but that it was given independently—unlike the Spalding witnesses.
Dan I did no more attacking than you, I did not completely misrepresent the situation. You complain about being attacked but you are the one doing most of it.
Your methodolgy book doesn't support you. McCullagh's "Justifying Historical Descriptions" gives a number of examples in which the primary witnesses' claims originally accepted by some historians or historically get rejected based upon evidence with better explanatory power which takes into account the context of the situation involved and the motivations of the primary witnesses. It doesn't matter how many multiple witnesses and/or if they gave their statements independently for the Book of Mormon translation, Dan if they all have a vested interest. And if there's only a few who didn't have a vested interest (like 2) but their experience is within the control of the fraudsters..then their statement don't help to support the fraudsters claims. Sheesh Dan.
And just as you didn't want to talk about Spalding with Criddle I'm not going there in this thread either. All I'm dealing with is your discussion on RFM..and how it leans towards apologetics for Mormonism. Your pious fraud theory and so much of your views on Smith rely upon the assumption that the primary witnesses..Emma, Cowdery, The Whitmers, J. Smith mother and father, M. Harris are essentially sincere trustworthy witnesses. It all rests on that assumption...which Dan ..leans towards apologetics.
It is also plainly wrong to say that I rely on mind reading when I accept the Mormon eyewitness testimony, although you rely on bigotry and an unsophisticated skepticism when you reject their testimony based on their unrelated visionary experiences. I quoted David Whitmer non-Mormon neighbors and acquaintances as to his honesty and integrity—to which you had no response. That’s not mind reading—that’s what historians do.
I'm tired of hearing you say "that's what historians do", or that you have no other choice but to accept their claims or telling me my problem is I don't understand historical methodology.
What you do is not what historians do. I know because I read McCullagh's book and he gave a number of examples in which primary witnesses' statements were rejected. McCullagh points out that understanding people's mental states is the hardest to justify. You are not the least bit skeptical of any of the Book of Mormon witnesses. This despite the fact they are involved in a fraud, which you acknowledge.
And as far as the Book of Mormon testimony statements..I've explained that the "nature of a claim" calls into question people's credibility. And if you can't see that ...you are not much of a skeptic. Calling me dogmatic is ad hom fallacy.
Of course, I spent hours explaining to you how historians should handle such testimony. If you didn’t get it then, you certainly won’t now.
Which is why I bought the book you referenced and found it didn't support you. A theory's explanatory power and scope is the key consideration. Your theory lacks explanatory power and scope.
It’s this kind of situation that makes conversing with you a complete waste of time. I took the time on the Spalding thread for the benefit of those who might be researching the topic, but it is quite unnecessary to do it here. So this is probably a one-time response.
I agree..I haven't brought up Spalding here..you did...but your pious fraud theory came up in this discussion.
Again, notice how you do not respond to my comment.
I did respond to it.
I recall Cabbie quoting a statement given by William Law that was mostly hearsay, and he didn’t like me pointing that out to him. I use the same methodology on Mormon sources, which makes what I do credible. Your accusation that I accept Mormon sources uncritically will find plenty of refutation in the body of my work. Such a silly statement only makes sense to those on the extreme end of critical spectrum.
Dan I've spent plenty of time reading your arguments in the spalding thread in celestial forum to fully appreciate that your theory and historical interpretations, rests on your non skeptical, uncritical assumption that the Book of Mormon translation witnesses are honest. From that assumption you assume Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, from that you interpret sections in the Book of Mormon as a reflection of Smith's psyche and argue he's a "pious fraud".
Again, the eyewitnesses became believers because of what they saw. Bias can be overcome through multiple and independent testimony. Their testimony that Joseph Smith used no MS is support by his inability to replace the lost MS. Believers might be biased, but that doesn’t mean they would lie and fabricate. For that conclusion, you need a different kind of evidence. But this is not the place to rehash the Spalding debate.
Exactly , it's not the place.
Of course, you are clearly wrong—as was Benson when he said I was a Joseph Smith apologist because I called him pious. Utter silliness. If you recall, I went to the real apologists at the FAIR board and conducted a survey—“Is Dan Vogel an Apologist for Joseph Smith?” Well, I don’t have to tell you the results of that survey, do I?
I'm aware you posed that question on FAIR..I saw it but I didn't pay much attention to what the replies were. I also don't recall Benson saying you were a J. smith apologist but I don't doubt he did and I'm sure that's something you'd remember much better than I. When you first originally went there and when I knew you on the FAIR board I didn't appreciate your views. So when you started to post on RFM...I thought you'd be embraced.
Without Benson's remarks as to why he argued you were a J. Smith apologist I really can't comment, I don't know what all his reasoning was.. I too, Dan have suggested within the Celestial thread, you are an apologist ..so it's no surprise to me if anyone should think that.
Of course I don’t uncritically accept Joseph Smith and the eyewitnesses to his translation method. I’m not aligned with the church on this since they still disseminate the breastplate and spectacles behind the curtain story. How does accepting eyewitnesses’ testimony, which includes two non-Mormons, make me an apologist? You only think that because it conflicts with YOUR pet theory. That’s where the RfMers went wrong. They were intolerant not only of me, but anyone who either supported me or wanted to explore the theory. Beastie wasn’t the only one; there were others who spoke out against Benson’s behavior, and they were attacked as well.
Well you don't accept J. Smith's claims to divine intervention, however when arguing with you the way you present it's hard to establish that. You've lost me on "I’m not aligned with the church on this since they still disseminate the breastplate and spectacles behind the curtain story".
With regards to : "How does accepting eyewitnesses’ testimony, which includes two non-Mormons, make me an apologist? You only think that because it conflicts with YOUR pet theory."
Well to start with the Book of Mormon testimony in the Book of Mormon due to the nature of the claims they are testifying to does affect their credibility..especially Cowdery. But as well D. Whitmer & Harris. You don't recognize that. And accusing me of bigotry..is just another one of you ad homs which you dish out frequently. The fact that all the Book of Mormon witnesses to the translation process other than the 2 you point out, had a vested interest...affects the reliability of their statements. The fact that we know Smith was involved in cons..which his wife knew and I'm sure others involved knew affects the liklihood that they would be aware the Book of Mormon was a con but your position is that Smith conned them and they are all sincerely believe it all. Not only do you not assume any of them possessed skepticism but you yourself, don't possess skepticism of their intent and motivation.
Personally, I could care less about what they do there, because it reminds me all too much of certain conformist aspects of Mormon culture. I guess Benson and Cabbie thought they had been assigned to the correlation committee.
I'm sure to Beastie and yourself it appeared that Benson and Cabbie controlled the discussion and that the majority went along with what they said. My focus was on the arguments overall, not on Cabbies' insult to Beastie or Benson when he reposted the same post but in new startup threads I believe in a short time period. I've seen that before when someone is ignoring a point and the person wants that addressed. In effect Stak is doing that on this board..he keeps bumping up a thread to get Dan P to respond well. That's similar to what I recall Benson doing..but over a short period of time in one day, it came across as weird.
Be that as it may, you have your perception of that board and what went on, and what would loom large in your mind wouldn't necessarily in mine. Benson and Cabbie I didn't notice nearly as much as some of the other posters and their arguments which I thought were well presented and argued..but at this point I have a weak memory of details.