A New MI Article: Kudos to Steven C. Harper

[_lulu]

Somewhere I read that Brodie's first edition was more Joseph Smith as fraud but she softened it in the 2nd edition. My brain is as disorganized as by research files so I don't know where to go looking for the cite. I've never compared myself. I've only worked with the 2nd edition.

She does have a section in there about staring at candle flames and such. That need not be read as Brodie puting Joseph Smith in the fraud column. He saw what he saw when he stared at the rocks. But what was it that he saw?

Ann Tave's Fits, Trances and Visions puts such experiences in the category of dissassociation and says that such is an ability that some people have and can, perhaps, develop to higher levels. Too bad she says next to nothing about Mormons and is no longer at Clairmont. But I don't think you could ever put her in the Joseph Smith as fraud category.

Quinn is still a believer also.

Brook's Refiner's Fire is only interested in what can be determined by historical methodology. I heard him say at a MHA panel that he does not mean to exclude God from the equation, its just not what he was looking for.

Vogel is in the fraud category and has some good arguments as to some occurances. But again, I can't replicate them here. But if Joseph Smith lied on some occasions does that mean that he lied about everything all the time?

Martin Marty's "The Two Integrities" goes too far in the other direction and takes the issue of fraud off of the table. I have never read Midgley's expansion on Marty.

So who is Harper writing against? Vogel, Wesley and a few others, sure. But that still makes his beginning point rather narrow. While I wouldn't go so far as to say that Harper is setting up a straw man, I do think he is setting up a false dichotomy. Such would strike me was unscholarly apologetics. But at least he has put up something thougthful which can be responded to in a thoughtful way.

[Guest]

Somewhere I read that Brodie's first edition was more Joseph Smith as fraud but she softened it in the 2nd edition. My brain is as disorganized as by research files so I don't know where to go looking for the cite.
I've never compared myself. I've only worked with the 2nd edition.

She does have a section in there about staring at candle flames and such. That need not be read as Brodie puting Joseph Smith in the fraud column. He saw what he saw when he stared at the rocks. But what was it that he saw?

According to an interview of Brodie (link below), which I found fascinating, by the time she decided to write NMKMH, she clearly intended to prove Joseph was a fraud, and that never changed. I really don't know the differences between the two editions, but based on this interview I suspect any softening of her stance had to do with the discovery of information about Joseph's relationships with his brothers that led her to be a bit more sympathetic. Honestly, I really don't know. But the fact is she never softened her stance that Joseph was a fraud.

So, in that regard, Harper is correct. But he ignores the huge amount of research that led her to that conclusion, and thus his "a priori" accusation is unwarranted.

ETA: This is the correct link to the Brodie inteview: http://www.salamandersociety.com/interviews/fawnbrodie/

[_lulu]

Somewhere I read that Brodie's first edition was more Joseph Smith as fraud but she softened it in the 2nd edition. My brain is as disorganized as by research files so I don't know where to go looking for the cite.
I've never compared myself. I've only worked with the 2nd edition.

She does have a section in there about staring at candle flames and such. That need not be read as Brodie puting Joseph Smith in the fraud column. He saw what he saw when he stared at the rocks. But what was it that he saw?

According to this interview of Brodie, which I found fascinating, by the time she decided to write NMKMH, she clearly intended to prove Joseph was a fraud, and that never changed. I really don't know the differences between the two editions, but based on this interview I suspect any softening of her stance had to do with the discovery of information about Joseph's relationships with his brothers that led her to be a bit more sympathetic. Honestly, I really don't know. But the fact is she never softened her stance that Joseph was a fraud.

So, in that regard, Harper is correct. But he ignores the huge amount of research that led her to that conclusion, and thus his "a priori" accusation is unwarranted.

Or Harper's "a priori" position that such is possible.

[_Doctor Scratch]

The key difference for me here is this: people are actually talking about the issues in Harper's article. There are (civil) disagreements, but the kinds of mudslinging and attacks just aren't here as they tend to be when the Mopologists do their usual rotten stuff.

[_Elphaba]

Or Harper's "a priori" position that such is possible.

Exactly. Thus, my earlier comment about the ironies contained in his article. ETA: I should have said I would "add this to the ironies" in the article. I had not originally articulated your point.

[_kairos]

over the past week or two several "new" names have been cited on the board as Mormon apologists.

seems the phrases "the mopologists" or "the apologists" are used often here.

my question: how many Mormon apologists are "out there" 100, 50 , 25, 15, 10 -does any one have a guess. perhaps everyone on the ill chosen MDD board like wade could be termed an apologist- but let's discount them as non-professional whatever that term means.

how many Mormon professional apologists self appointed or those on the the rolls at church headquarters? eg bushman and givens and DCP and lou and gee and .... are professional apologists.

my guess more than 10 but less than the number of players on an NFL team roster, say 51


anyone want to throw out a number?


just sayin

k

[_aussieguy55]

Harper's article was fascinating , especially since it was about my old friend Wesley P Walters. When I was in the LDS church, the youth had a get together with some Seventh Day Adventist youth. I got to know one guy who was a bit of a bookworm like myself. To my surprise he has several of the Tanner books.There I got to hear about the revival issue, with large quotes from various papers on the FV.
At the same time I was subscribing to Dialogue, I ordered some back issues, the Spring, 1969 issue was especially interesting as it had a paper by Walters, a response by Richard Bushman and a rejoinder by Walters. Some time before that I asked an American couple what the opinion of the LDS leadership was of Dialogue. They heard that some leaders were disappointed over one issue where there was an lame response by a LDS historian to a paper by a Presbyterian pastor.
Meanwhile Milton Backman's book on the FV came out. It in there was no reference to either paper in Dialogue. I wrote the Tanners and asked them what they thought of Backman's book. They sent my inquiry on to Walters and that was the start of a long correspondence. Walters had written to Backman asking him to explain some footnote. Backman never responded. I did something narky and wrote to ,I think it was Dr Allen. He then sent my inquiry to Backman and Backman sent me a letter. I of course sent that to Walters who in his usual form took it apart.
There are other problematic parts of the FV story besides the revival, The timing of when the Smith family joined the Presbyterian church. According to the official account it was in 1820. The OC history says it was in 1823-24. In Bushman's RSR page 570 fn 570 argues that there is evidence it was in 1824.
Walters shared some membership data for the Methodists for 1819, 1820 and 1821 showing there was not great increase in membership as a result of a revival. I know of one individual who plans to research this own issue.

[_Doctor Scratch]

over the past week or two several "new" names have been cited on the board as Mormon apologists.

seems the phrases "the mopologists" or "the apologists" are used often here.

my question: how many Mormon apologists are "out there" 100, 50 , 25, 15, 10 -does any one have a guess. perhaps everyone on the ill chosen MDD board like wade could be termed an apologist- but let's discount them as non-professional whatever that term means.

how many Mormon professional apologists self appointed or those on the the rolls at church headquarters? eg bushman and givens and DCP and lou and gee and .... are professional apologists.

my guess more than 10 but less than the number of players on an NFL team roster, say 51


anyone want to throw out a number?


just sayin

k

That's an excellent question, Kairos. How many "apologists" are out there? Like the census, it's really going to depend very much on how you classify people. If we say "apologist" in the broadest sense, meaning that we are including all people who publicly "defend the Church" in some capacity, then it's going to be several hundred, since we're including people like Givens, Bushman, and Flake in addition to DCP, "Woody," all the amateurs and armchair theologians, and so on. Of course, if we limit this to only "professional apologists," by which I think you mean: those people who have real reputations, and who have pulished legitimate books, then it's almost certainly less than 100--probably less than 50, I would say.

But then we come to the category of the Mopologist: these are those LDS defenders who are especially hostile and vicious, and it can include both the "pros" like the ex-FARMS crowd, and the amateurs like Selek or JeffK. You have to bear in mind that FAIR alone has over a hundred volunteers, so the ranks of Mopologists must number into the hundreds--maybe 150-200 total?

And how many "professional" Mopologists are there? Again: this is going to depend on classification, and I actually think this is the most interesting part of your question, since Mopologetics itself--as an enterprise--is so ga-ga over credentials. In terms of actual, "professional" Mopologists, there are really only a handful--perhaps 2 dozen. And it's tough in terms of deciding where to draw the line. E.g., I would include Tvedtnes, in spite of the fact that he lacks a Ph.D., but I would *not* include Mike Ash, even though he's published a classic Mopologetic text--the dreadful and embarrassing Shaken Faith Syndrome. Ash, in my view, is still a lower-tier amateur. Wade Englund, who used to own a Web site and was once awarded the "Liahona" defender's award, would still be an amateur. John Lynch and Scott Gordon, on the other hand, also have Web sites, and I *would* include them as professional Mopologists because of their power, and their administrative and leadership roles. Someone like juliann would be a borderline case; once upon a time, I probably would have classified her as a "pro," but certainly not anymore. And what about Roger Nicholson (a.k.a., the Willy Wonka of FAIR)? Because of his role with the FAIR Wiki, I'm inclined to call him a "pro." It's sort of weird (and kind of fun) to think about what factors might go into qualifying someone as a "professional Mopologist": e.g., a Ph.D. helps, but is not necessary; the same goes for a book; publication in the FARMS Review or MI is likewise helpful, but even multiple publications in either of those "journals" does not necessarily make one a "professional Mopologist." Over-the-top, vicious hostility ala Midgley and Peterson will anchor someone into their "pro-Mopo" status, but you don't necessarily need to be flagrantly nasty, either--ala Lynch or Jack Welch.

Really provocative questions here, in any case, Kairos.

[_MrStakhanovite]

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.

I think that is a fair assessment. I was getting the feel that Harper was trying to point out that some historians can stack the deck so no evidence can tip the scales towards a faithful thesis.

[_lulu]

PS Elphaba, could you check the link to the Brodie interview, I would love to read it.