A New MI Article: Kudos to Steven C. Harper

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

A New MI Article: Kudos to Steven C. Harper

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

I have to tip my hat to Steven C. Harper, author of the latest "article" in the Mormon Interpreter. Frankly, I don't know how something like this survived the editing process, but I'm thankful that it did. Just look at this:

Toward a Civil Dialogue

Richard Bushman had just won the historians’ prestigious Bancroft Prize when he responded with civility and grace to Reverend Walters. When I asked him why he chose that method, Bushman replied, “Simply as a tactical matter in any kind [Page 32]of controversy, it never serves you well to show scorn towards your opponent. That may make the people who are on your side rejoice and say, ‘Kick them again.’ But for those who are in the middle who are trying to decide which truth is right, you just alienate them, you just drive them into the hands of your opponent.”33  Sometimes, in an effort to defend the faith, Latter-day Saints have reacted with hostility to the critics of Joseph’s vision. If there ever was an appropriate time for such a response, it is now passed.

We are removed enough from the battlefront that we can respond less defensively and try instead to meet the needs of those who are undecided. Although I disagree with the a priori assumptions and historical interpretations of Fawn Brodie, Reverend Walters, and the Methodist minister who reproved Joseph, I empathize with these people. I may well have responded as they did if I were in different circumstances. Indeed, the minister’s and the reverend’s responses were not so different from many LDS defenses of Mormonism. Each of these critics is a vulnerable personality, like the rest of us. They worked hard to figure out how to relate to Joseph Smith’s first vision. I wish to treat them as I would like to be treated by them—and as Joseph taught the Relief Society sisters in Nauvoo. To them he said, “The nearer we get to our heavenly Father, the more are we dispos’d to look with compassion on perishing souls—to take them upon our shoulders and cast their sins behind our back. . . . If you would have God have mercy on you, have mercy on one another.”


http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/evalua ... st-vision/

Harper's essay is a case study in how to disagree with others without being nasty about it. Though he powerfully disagrees with Brodie, Walters, et al., he's nonetheless civil--sympathetic, even. It's striking and instructive to compare this to utterances from the Mopologists, like DCP, who've instead emphasized attitudes like, "No uncontested slam-dunks." Kudos to Bro. Harper, in any event.

But this has really got me wondering: Why would the MI allow an article like this to follow in the wake of the dreadful Hedelius piece? Is this meant to be "cover," or icing that's meant to cover up the evil, stinking cake underneath? Clearly, the MI is overwhelmingly nasty: the DCP bit, the two Midgley articles, the Hedelius, the Roger Nicholson, etc., have been rather negative, and in the spirit of hostile Mopologetics. On the other hand, we have this, the Bokovoy, and perhaps the Brant Gardner piece that were more even-handed. I have to wonder: why are they even bothering with the civil stuff? Why not just have full-fledged attacks? It's baffling, really.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
_sock puppet
_Emeritus
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: A New MI Article: Kudos to Steven C. Harper

Post by _sock puppet »

Doc,

I can just hear the defenders now. Scratch is tossing a softball so that it doesn't look like he indiscriminately always throwing 95-mph hard balls at Mormon Interpreters. It's just to throw people off.

But it is obvious you are not as predictable or indiscriminate as they would like to assume.

Compliments to Mr Harper, as you've duly given.
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: A New MI Article: Kudos to Steven C. Harper

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

Actually, Sock: I have to offer up a bit of collegial disagreement. I am rather predictable: if they publish civil, decent articles, I won't complain. If they publish nasty, Mopologetic smear-pieces, I will criticize them. It really is as simple as that, as it has always been.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
_lulu
_Emeritus
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 12:08 am

Re: A New MI Article: Kudos to Steven C. Harper

Post by _lulu »

Harper wrote:Abstract: Historically there have been just three basic arguments against the authenticity of Joseph Smith’s first vision. They all begin with the a priori premise that such a vision simply could not have happened.


Wow, that's a pretty broad statement. I would not classify myself among those who claim it was not authentic or that "such a vision simply could not have happened." But I would discuss what "authentic" might mean and what "such a vision" might entail. I don't think many practicing Mormons would be very happy with my questions or explanations. They certainly would not see it as testimony bearing but I don't have an a priori premise.

While his tone is respectful, he severly skews the argument with his dichotomous opening. Something one might expect from a trial lawyer's opening statement, but from a scholar?

Looking forward to his book.
Last edited by Guest on Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.
_sock puppet
_Emeritus
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: A New MI Article: Kudos to Steven C. Harper

Post by _sock puppet »

Doctor Scratch wrote:Actually, Sock: I have to offer up a bit of collegial disagreement. I am rather predictable: if they publish civil, decent articles, I won't complain. If they publish nasty, Mopologetic smear-pieces, I will criticize them. It really is as simple as that, as it has always been.

Indeed! But not predictable in the way your detractors would have MDB readers believe.
_Everybody Wang Chung
_Emeritus
Posts: 4056
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 2:53 am

Re: A New MI Article: Kudos to Steven C. Harper

Post by _Everybody Wang Chung »

Dr. Scratch,

I happen to know Steven Harper personally. He is a great guy with a big heart. I will send him an email with this link. He will appreciate that you singled his article out for advocating civility.

Steven has more in common with you than you probably realize, Dr. Scratch. I know that Steven disagrees strongly with the bullying tactics promoted by DCP, Hamblin and Midgley. I think the main reason Steven contributes these types of articles is to show that not all apologists are angry, bitter and narrow-minded.

I really think the old guard is on life support. The future is apologists like Steven and Bokovoy.
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."

Daniel C. Peterson, 2014
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: A New MI Article: Kudos to Steven C. Harper

Post by _Kishkumen »

Doctor Scratch wrote:Actually, Sock: I have to offer up a bit of collegial disagreement. I am rather predictable: if they publish civil, decent articles, I won't complain. If they publish nasty, Mopologetic smear-pieces, I will criticize them. It really is as simple as that, as it has always been.


Yup.

As for me, I recognize their right to be nasty, and, now that they are not at BYU, I see it as less a reflection on the LDS Church than indicative of their own shortcomings individually and as a collection of colleagues. Still, I see nothing wrong with critiquing individual apologetic writings that hew to the classic-FARMS standard for intellectual dishonesty and personal hostility.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: A New MI Article: Kudos to Steven C. Harper

Post by _Kishkumen »

Everybody Wang Chung wrote:Dr. Scratch,

I happen to know Steven Harper personally. He is a great guy with a big heart. I will send him an email with this link. He will appreciate that you singled his article out for advocating civility.

Steven has more in common with you than you probably realize, Dr. Scratch. I know that Steven disagrees strongly with the bullying tactics promoted by DCP, Hamblin and Midgley. I think the main reason Steven contributes these types of articles is to show that not all apologists are angry, bitter and narrow-minded.

I really think the old guard is on life support. The future is apologists like Steven and Bokovoy.


Well, I offer my kudos too. I am in favor of a stout defense of one's beliefs when undertaken with civility and intellectual integrity. Harper has done a good job here.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_MrStakhanovite
_Emeritus
Posts: 5269
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:32 am

Re: A New MI Article: Kudos to Steven C. Harper

Post by _MrStakhanovite »

lulu wrote:Wow, that's a pretty broad statement.


Good catch.

He is also misusing the term “a priori” in his abstract. The philosophically astute DCP must not have given his peer review. I’m not sure what he wanted to say…

Did he mean that someone like Brody thought Joseph’s Vision was necessarily false? That it could not have been otherwise? That would be a seriously strong claim.
_Elphaba
_Emeritus
Posts: 499
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2011 1:21 pm

Re: A New MI Article: Kudos to Steven C. Harper

Post by _Elphaba »

MrStakhanovite wrote:Did he mean that someone like Brody thought Joseph’s Vision was necessarily false? That it could not have been otherwise? That would be a seriously strong claim.
I really struggled with that one too. Ultimately, Harper is correct that by the time Brodie began writing NMKMH, she was convinced Joseph was not a true prophet, and therefore looked for other explanations for his claims, including that of the First Vision. However, Harper is wrong to call this an “a priori” approach. Rather it was an “a posteriori” approach based on acquired knowledge and research.

Brodie had been raised in the Church and had an intricate understanding of its truth claims regarding its history, including the First Vision. She eventually lost her faith when she discovered, based on research, the true ancestry of the Native Americans. This made everything she had been taught by the Church suspect, and from that point on, she looked for, and found, explanations of Joseph’s claims other than what the Church taught. Again, this is not “a priori,” but “a posteriori.”

Overall, while I take Harper's point, I also find a lot of irony in his piece. First, he is guilty of that which Brodie is so often criticized, i.e., making unsubstantiated claims about her psychological motivations. He writes:
. . . she chose to leave the faith and underwent a painful reorientation process that required her to account for the Book of Mormon and to reinterpret Joseph’s first vision.
I have never read anything that indicates Brodie went through a "painful reorientation," though I admit I may have missed it. But from what I've read, being raised by a closeted doubting mother somewhat mitigated the effects of Fawn concluding the Church was not true. The only “painful” part for her was watching the effect her being a "heretic" had on the prominent TBM members of her family, including her uncle, David O. McKay. Beyond that, Brodie looked at her loss of belief as a sort of natural progression to the truth (my words not hers), and she saw this as a good thing.

I also find it ironic that Harper would choose to make "a priori" arguments central to his criticisms, when his own approach to the First Vision is that it really happened. Of course, any LDS apologist would argue the same, and I see nothing wrong with that. I just think the piece would have been much stronger without making the "a priori" arguments, period.

Harper’s CV is impressive and I am anxious to read his research on the First Vision, as it sounds like it contains information I’ve not read before. I also appreciate his insistence that a sympathetic understanding of a critic’s motivations is always warranted. I think it is a positive sign that the Interpreter chose to publish one of his articles.
Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)
~~Walt Whitman
Post Reply