Brant Gardner Interview On Mormon Stories

[_Aristotle Smith]

OK, just finished part #2. Gardner is still doing fine, but Dehlin spent an eternity beating Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews" to death. Easily the least interesting and least convincing evidence against the Book of Mormon. Hopefully it returns to being more interesting in part #3.

I did find one thing Gardner said to be inaccurate in my view. He claims that during the Anthon fiasco that Martin Harris was skeptical. Now I don't know if he limits Harris' skepticism to just this episode or to his whole life, I'm hoping/guessing the former. However, given what is know about Martin Harris, he seems to have been one of the least skeptical people on Earth.

[_thews]

Listened to part one. Brant is an interesting Mormon, in that he's a magical thinker. It's evident in his arguments that he actually believes Joseph Smith could find lost objects with his seer stones, even making the point that people wouldn't come to him if he wasn't successful. Oddly, he then acknowledges luck would play a part in anyone who claimed to see lost things. Key observations:

The power behind the seer stones - Either God or the devil was behind the power, but those definitions are ones that the people didn’t understand. He goes on to claim there was "Angelic power" to enable them to work. The ability to see lost objects was just a a talent someone had... as long as it worked.

The use of seer stones - "Not a dark art at all." Why Joseph Smith practiced the dark art when he knew about God was not strange. Question asked to Do you believe he had a power? There was “something that was going on.” Goes on to explain there are people now who use seer stones with “explicit success.” Ends with "Something there, but exactly what is was I’m not sure." He later claims that Joseph Smith never went back to finding lost things after the plates, which contradicts the story Martin Harris tells of Joseph Smith finding a lost pin using his "old white hat" and seer stone.

Was Joseph Smith a con man - After stating Joseph Smith never did anything to allude to being a con man, the Kirkland bank was brought up and the story of putting bricks in place of where gold should be was not something a con man would do, but rather a viable tactic to save the bank.

Why are there different versions of the first vision - Because it didn’t interest them at the time. It’s common to have differences based on the audience. Modern perspective is a wrong question to ask of history. Memory of the past is conditioned by experiences of the present. To remember things differently is science based. Don’t accept one thing to build a case, because it doesn't mater as the end result is Book of Mormon.

To summarize, Brant's answers are textbook examples of how to appease cognitive dissonance by ignorance of what is, and replacing it with what isn't. His logic is so poor it boggles the mind, as attempting to convey changing the first vision story to different audiences was normal, so the fact that Joseph Smith remembers both God and Jesus at a later date is easily explained... because the Book of Mormon is true, so it has to be normal... as long as you believe in magic.

[_Panopticon]

It's funny that Brant Gardner couldn't see in his own book (and in FARMS/FAIR) the selective parallels and confirmation bias that he attributed to the author of the Wikipedia article on View of the Hebrews. Daniel Peterson et al. are poster children for this technique.

Brant missed the point, however, about the parallels between the View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon. I don't think anyone argues that Joseph tried to rewrite View of the Hebrews. Instead, people like Grant Palmer argue that Joseph borrowed certain concepts, e.g., Israelite origin of the American Indian.

[_Drifting]

It's funny that Brant Gardner couldn't see in his own book (and in FARMS/FAIR) the selective parallels and confirmation bias that he attributed to the author of the Wikipedia article on View of the Hebrews. Daniel Peterson et al. are poster children for this technique.

Brant missed the point, however, about the parallels between the View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon. I don't think anyone argues that Joseph tried to rewrite View of the Hebrews. Instead, people like Grant Palmer argue that Joseph borrowed certain concepts, e.g., Israelite origin of the American Indian.

Does Gardner have any specific credentials for study in this field or is he an interested member that has gone about finding out lots of stuff?

[_Runtu]

Does Gardner have any specific credentials for study in this field or is he an interested member that has gone about finding out lots of stuff?

Brant did doctoral work in anthropology but did not finish his dissertation.

[_Aristotle Smith]

Here is my final recommendation on the podcast: Don't bother. I listened to all five parts so that I could give my opinion on the whole thing, I wanted to stop at 3 1/2.

However, this recommendation has nothing to do with Brant Gardner. I thought he did an excellent job. If you are interested in what he thinks, save yourself some time and just go and buy his books. Here is the link to the book discussed in the interview:

http://www.gregkofford.com/products/the-gift-and-power

From the interview it appears that Dehlin was either uninterested or unprepared to interview Gardner. Two problems stick out in my mind. First, Dehlin time after time asked silly questions like, "Well, don't you have empathy for people who disagree with you?" What was Gardner supposed to do say? "No John, I'm a complete dick, and anyone who disagrees with me needs to be shot." Other silly questions were things like, "Well, don't you think if we asked 100 well educated people their opinions on this that they would disagree with you?" How in the world do you respond to a question like that? "Gee John, I think everyone smart and informed disagrees with me, I just like causing myself pain and looking stupid! In fact, just to experience this I kick myself in the nuts each and every night, film it, and post the video on YouTube, because it's such great fun."

Second, Dehlin wasn't really approaching Gardner's position as it should have been done. It's obvious that Gardner takes a very sophisticated approach to the Book of Mormon, he's no fundamentalist. However, Dehlin only seemed interested in asking Gardner questions from a fundie viewpoint. At several points I got the impression that Dehlin wasn't really following Gardner, and at one point Dehlin admitted as much. This impression is mainly based on the questions that Dehlin asked. Given Gardner's stance, the questions seemed irrelevant at times, again mainly because Gardner's approach seems to be a bit more sophisticated than Dehlin was either prepared or willing to handle.

I don't share Gardner's views and I think they would fall apart on close analysis. However, it's not the kind of position that one can dismiss with a clever one liner or a generic argument. To engage Gardner really would require a better understanding of his position and arguments.

[_Runtu]

Thanks for the head's up, AS. I haven't read Brant's books, but I have read his online stuff, which is the genesis for most of the book, as I understand. Brant is a good man, and as you say, he's completely consistent in his approach. That I don't find it at all compelling doesn't mean he hasn't done good work. It's a tough position to start with, and it's difficult for an apologist not to take certain liberties with the text.

[_badseed]

It's funny that Brant Gardner couldn't see in his own book (and in FARMS/FAIR) the selective parallels and confirmation bias that he attributed to the author of the Wikipedia article on View of the Hebrews. Daniel Peterson et al. are poster children for this technique.

Brant missed the point, however, about the parallels between the View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon. I don't think anyone argues that Joseph tried to rewrite View of the Hebrews. Instead, people like Grant Palmer argue that Joseph borrowed certain concepts, e.g., Israelite origin of the American Indian.

I'm on part 3 and was thinking the same thing. B Gardner could see the bias and spin on the part of critics and the Wikipedia entry on VotH but seems to miss when he employs the exact same sort of thinking.

John D. kind of calls him on it all little and Brant argues that his arguments are somehow better and more sound.....but no surprise, this critic doesn't agree.

[_consiglieri]

Brant is a good man,

And a very good looking one, too.


Muchas Smooches!

[_Polygamy-Porter]

What I heard was a man trying to quiet the voice of logic and reason in his head.