That Lovely Morning

[_Kishkumen]

Excellent OP, Reverend. I would say that I'm surprised that Dr. Peterson is (apparently) engaged in dishonest behavior, but, of course, I'm not. It really is kind of an inside joke at this point, isn't it? We point out he's dishonest; he makes some quip about how critics just automatically accuse him of dishonesty, and ho! ho! ho! it's all just so funny! Except for the fact that the key audience for this dissembling is going to wind up accepting it. In other words, DCP *knows* he is being dishonest but writes it off on the grounds that the Chapel Mormon "rubes" are too stupid to know better.

Thank you for the compliment, Doctor. I agree that DCP's target audience is already primed to assume that his critics hate him for no good reason, and so their criticism has no merit. That is what being a partisan is all about for many people--listening only to your own side's point of view, and never even bothering to examine the criticisms and counter-arguments.

Since DCP is a proponent and defender of Mormonism, the one true faith, and his critics are also critics of Mormonism, then he must be right and his critics must be wrong. Right? It is tribal thinking at its best, or, rather, worst.

[_Kishkumen]

This "story" recounted by Mr. Stevenson cannot be true. Let me explain.

The poster got greedy. Of course there must be a possibility, however slight, that Stevenson heard Joseph refer to two personages. It is highly improbable. But the poster wants to say it is impossible, and that gives DCP the wiggle room to jump all over the logical error and make this error the issue.

DCP is pretty sly. Don't forget that, anyone. He sets up the situation by posting about an interesting account, knowing that those already disposed to believe in Mormonism as it was later constructed and to assume that it was always that way will see their testimonies vindicated here. He knows that critics will jump in to say that this does not prove anything, so that he can say he never claimed it did. Meanwhile his fans are taking pleasure at watching the critics stopped dead in their tracks, lost in the weeds of DCP's hairsplitting and equivocations.

Critics need to be more savvy in avoiding these traps before they spring. Unfortunately, too often critics get excited about how DCP is wrong here and rush in to correct him. It is necessary to step back and grasp how he has set up the situation before you go rushing in.

The real issue here for me is that you have an educator who is failing to educate. He is abdicating his responsibility to cultivate critical thinking in his students. The only people educated here are those who are willing to take him on and criticize his work. His casual fans get uneducated. He has given them no help in how to assess the relative value of different kinds of evidence. This is what he ought to be doing as an educator. Instead, he is playing games and misleading his core readership.

[_Runtu]

The poster got greedy. Of course there must be a possibility, however slight, that Stevenson heard Joseph refer to two personages. It is highly improbable. But the poster wants to say it is impossible, and that gives DCP the wiggle room to jump all over the logical error and make this error the issue.

DCP is pretty sly. Don't forget that, anyone. He sets up the situation by posting about an interesting account, knowing that those already disposed to believe in Mormonism as it was later constructed and to assume that it was always that way will see their testimonies vindicated here. He knows that critics will jump in to say that this does not prove anything, so that he can say he never claimed it did. Meanwhile his fans are taking pleasure at watching the critics stopped dead in their tracks, lost in the weeds of DCP's hairsplitting and equivocations.

Critics need to be more savvy in avoiding these traps before they spring. Unfortunately, too often critics get excited about how DCP is wrong here and rush in to correct him. It is necessary to step back and grasp how he has set up the situation before you go rushing in.

Yes, people forget we are dealing in probability, and in this case it's pretty slight. But apologists tend to pounce on overstatements like this commenter's.

The real issue here for me is that you have an educator who is failing to educate. He is abdicating his responsibility to cultivate critical thinking in his students. The only people educated here are those who are willing to take him on and criticize his work. His casual fans get uneducated. He has given them no help in how to assess the relative value of different kinds of evidence. This is what he ought to be doing as an educator. Instead, he is playing games and misleading his core readership.

I'm reminded of my daughter's explanation of why she didn't consider attending BYU: "Universities are supposed to challenge your basic assumptions, but BYU seems designed to reinforce them." Apologetics isn't about challenging assumptions or changing paradigms; it's about reinforcing beliefs and excluding other possibilities.

[_Lemmie]

This "story" recounted by Mr. Stevenson cannot be true. Let me explain.

The poster got greedy. Of course there must be a possibility, however slight, that Stevenson heard Joseph refer to two personages. It is highly improbable. But the poster wants to say it is impossible, and that gives DCP the wiggle room to jump all over the logical error and make this error the issue.

Excellent point, I threw the comment up here late last night, but it really did need to be qualified, thank you for doing that.

The irony to me, as a mathematician, is that DCP is misusing a strong mathematical concept to exploit a logical fallacy his believing readers engage in, that of assuming their conclusion is true a priori and then being left with no option but to force-fit all data into supporting that assumption.

The true probability, after weighing the evidence, is technically closer to zero (impossible) than it is to probable, which could be defined as at least better even odds. However, as you point out, the strict definition of "impossible" is "not possible," or a probability of zero. Few scientists would be willing to ever assign a probability of zero to an event like this, and DCP exploits that. As Doctor Scratch pointed out, it's not an honest way to treat one's readers.

DCP is pretty sly. Don't forget that, anyone. He sets up the situation by posting about an interesting account, knowing that those already disposed to believe in Mormonism as it was later constructed and to assume that it was always that way will see their testimonies vindicated here. He knows that critics will jump in to say that this does not prove anything, so that he can say he never claimed it did. Meanwhile his fans are taking pleasure at watching the critics stopped dead in their tracks, lost in the weeds of DCP's hairsplitting and equivocations.

Critics need to be more savvy in avoiding these traps before they spring. Unfortunately, too often critics get excited about how DCP is wrong here and rush in to correct him. It is necessary to step back and grasp how he has set up the situation before you go rushing in.

Excellent advice, and you state it quite eloquently! I'm sure Cassius keeps a running list of advice for the budding non-mopologist, this deserves a place of honor. .

The real issue here for me is that you have an educator who is failing to educate. He is abdicating his responsibility to cultivate critical thinking in his students. The only people educated here are those who are willing to take him on and criticize his work. His casual fans get uneducated. He has given them no help in how to assess the relative value of different kinds of evidence. This is what he ought to be doing as an educator. Instead, he is playing games and misleading his core readership.

Well stated. It's an area close to my heart, and I really don't understand his casual betrayal of his academic obligations. That it's happening in a blog is irrelevant. He is an academic representing his University.

[_Symmachus]

A fascinating post and thread. I'd never heard about this account. I'm of the mind that a fair historian should accept an account given by a source until and unless there is a reason not to. But I think Kish has the shown that the language between the 1838 version and Stevenson's account is simply too similar to ignore. It has to be explained somehow.

Speaking of the need to explain things, I think Peterson has tossed in a red herring. Stevenson's account might call into question the accepted view that the First Vision wasn't a prominent part of LDS devotion—has this exactly been established anyway? It tastes less like a fact to me than a historiographic trope one finds so often today in the steroidal market of academic publishing and interpretation-production ("you thought x, but it's really y"). But making this about Stevenson clouds the real issue we're concerned about: it's not whether Stevenson's memory is accurate but why the accounts of Joseph Smith are at such variance. Let's suppose his memory is accurate: if Joseph Smith was saying 1834 what he claimed in 1838, then why the variations in 1835?

On the most charitable and superficial reading of Stevenson (which Peterson wants his readers to take), Joseph Smith had an even harder time keeping his story straight than we had supposed before reading Peterson's column.

[_Kishkumen]

Thank you for that lucid and eloquent explanation of the probability issue, Lemmie. Although I lack your expertise (wish I did not), my intuition or perhaps Bayesian sense of a priori probability that Stevenson’s memory was not malleable and altered over time, and that he was not influenced by the devotional memory of the First Vision of the late 19th century as he wrote this reminiscence is close to zero.

[_Kishkumen]

On the most charitable and superficial reading of Stevenson (which Peterson wants his readers to take), Joseph Smith had an even harder time keeping his story straight than we had supposed before reading Peterson's column.

Delicious! Yes, I think others in this thread have come close to saying this, but you have an incisive and devastatingly clear way of arguing and articulating the point. DCP is lucky he does not have to face you out in the open. Wow.

[_grindael]

Is there any written record/minutes of any of Joseph's preaching to those other "many large congregations" Edward Stevenson is referring to?

Not likely, and he wasn't testifying of the visit of the Father and the Son in 1834 as far as the contemporary evidence is concerned. What they were testifying to, all the missionaries and many others, is that Joseph supposedly first went to God in 1823 and was answered by an angel. And in that same exact year, that is the story in the HISTORY that Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith wrote and published for the world to read.

[_Symmachus]

You are generous in your praise as ever, Kish. I certainly don't have the command of the facts in the way that someone like Grindael does, who continues to awe me with how much he knows about this period of Mormonism. But the implication that Peterson seems to be leaning on is that the 1835 and 1832 accounts aren't difficult if just some version of the 1838 account was current in 1834. I don't get how that's supposed to help.

"Your Honor, it's true I did make contradictory claims in the past, but in fairness to me I additionally claimed at that time the thing that I'm claiming now."

[_Runtu]

You are generous in your praise as ever, Kish. I certainly don't have the command of the facts in the way that someone like Grindael does, who continues to awe me with how much he knows about this period of Mormonism. But the implication that Peterson seems to be leaning on is that the 1835 and 1832 accounts aren't difficult if just some version of the 1838 account was current in 1834. I don't get how that's supposed to help.

"Your Honor, it's true I did make contradictory claims in the past, but in fairness to me I additionally claimed at that time the thing that I'm claiming now."

Just ran across this rather appropriate quote from Mark Twain:

"When I was younger I could remember anything, whether it happened or not. But as I grew older, it got so that I only remembered the latter."