That Lovely Morning

[_Lemmie]

Actually, in the spirit of being counter-intuitive, I'm going to defend old Peterson here. He has at least (1) engaged with criticism of his opinion-journalism on the First Vision by producing something other than self-pity or polemic, and (2) pulled out a source which seems to be genuinely new to most people here.

(2) was new to me, so I can't argue there, but honorentheos did mention some quite interesting history of the use of this type of reminiscence in apologetics:

Interesting to see Dr. Peterson resurrect the old defense of the first vision. FAIRs old defense began with rather condescending assertions that there were many accounts of the first vision that supported the official version even predating the written 1832 account. But as more and more critics uncovered the reality these supposed early accounts all consisted of later recollections claiming someone heard the story somewhere in the 1830-1840 timeframe but being told no earlier than the 1850s, we saw this defense quietly retire in favor of others such as Smith's later visions and experiences helping him better understand what he had witnessed.

I also think that he shouldn't be held to academic standards of pedagogy on his blog. I can't imagine the rest of us would want to be judged in that way for our online activity. He's essentially engaging in journalism here, just as he was in his Deseret NEws article, and that's the appropriate yardstick by which to measure him.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the pedagogy issue, but even using the yardstick of journalism you suggest, I would argue he has some frequent and egregious issues keeping certain aspects of that standard as well.

See: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=47236&hilit=plagiarism

[_Johannes]

Yes, that's a fair point, consig. Saying "no suppression" is a very bald statement. Can it be excused as a rhetorical flourish that is forgiveable in the context of a piece of opinion journalism? I don't know, maybe. I haven't been following his blog, which is very naughty of me, so I don't know if he's addressed this point, but I agree that he ought to do so if he hasn't.

[_Johannes]

(2) was new to me, so I can't argue there, but honorentheos did mention some quite interesting history of the use of this type of reminiscence in apologetics:

Ah ok, point taken, it's an old argument.

The one thing that would persuade me that he ought to write as a teacher in tertiary education rather than a mass-market blogger is that he puts his name to his blog. I suppose I could be convinced that that places a greater responsibility on him to write to the standards of the tutorial room rather than the pub after class*, although that's really on the BYU administration.

* = That's a metaphor. I have no doubt that DCP keeps the word of wisdom.

[_Runtu]

Ah ok, point taken, it's an old argument.

The one thing that would persuade me that he ought to write as a teacher in tertiary education rather than a mass-market blogger is that he puts his name to his blog. I suppose I could be convinced that that places a greater responsibility on him to write to the standards of the tutorial room rather than the pub after class*, although that's really on the BYU administration.

* = That's a metaphor. I have no doubt that DCP keeps the word of wisdom.

I just had the lovely image of DCP as Cliff Clavin. Thanks for that!

[_Johannes]

I'd have said Norm Peterson, but I think both work!

[_Symmachus]

Actually, in the spirit of being counter-intuitive, I'm going to defend old Peterson here. He has at least (1) engaged with criticism of his opinion-journalism on the First Vision by producing something other than self-pity or polemic, and (2) pulled out a source which seems to be genuinely new to most people here.

I also think that he shouldn't be held to academic standards of pedagogy on his blog. I can't imagine the rest of us would want to be judged in that way for our online activity. He's essentially engaging in journalism here, just as he was in his Deseret NEws article, and that's the appropriate yardstick by which to measure him.

He has no historical case, of course, but that's a flaw that's inherent in the materials he has to work with. If that's the criticism, it essentially reduces to "DCP shouldn't believe in Mormonism", which seems a little redundant to me.

Well, I'm happy to see someone give him a gold star for trying, but I think the issue is that he's claiming there is no flaw inherent in the materials he has to work with, which just isn't true.

Whether that means he or anyone shouldn't believe in Mormonism is another question, because it's perfectly possible, perhaps even reasonable, for someone who has had intimate contact with a higher order of reality, as I understand he once had while scouting for water with a stick, not to care about such mundane, trivial matters. But that's not a license to mislead. One can never know what or whom Joseph Smith saw or did not see, but we can know what the historical record says.

[_Johannes]

Whether that means he or anyone shouldn't believe in Mormonism is another question, because it's perfectly possible, perhaps even reasonable, for someone who has had intimate contact with a higher order of reality, as I understand he once had while scouting for water with a stick, not to care about such mundane, trivial matters. But that's not a license to mislead.

Actually, his best "out" here is postmodernism. If I was his defence lawyer, I would encourage him to turn this into something other than an exercise in Quellenforschung, because he can't win on that terrain. It wouldn't be that difficult to do, either.

As for mystical experiences, well, even Aquinas had one, although his was during Mass rather than while dowsing. If DCP suddenly starts writing about the third heaven after his next sacrament meeting, we'll know what's happened.

[_Kishkumen]

Indeed. I can honestly say that this board and its people are an inexhaustible source of information for me. For example, grindael's thread about Joseph Smith vs. William Law, comparing their private and public statements leading up to June 1844, told me more about the reasons things came to a head than pretty much anything I had read before.

Yes! I think we are all indebted to grindael. I particularly enjoyed the Smith v. Law thread, as I have long felt that Law, unfairly pilloried in the memory of the Mormon community, was in fact one of its unheralded heroes and men of true conscience. Given a choice to trust Smith or Law, I would choose Law any day of the week. Smith may have been a religious genius of sorts, but Law was a man of upstanding character. There are many reasons not to trust Smith.

[_Stem]

I see he settled this issue by posting a new blog post wherein he tells everyone that he finds Stevenson's quote interesting and nothing more. Fewf! I thought he was posting it to try and support the notion that Joseph didn't come up "with the idea of a visit of two personages — the Father and the Son — rather late".

Somehow, though, this repeat of the teachings of the Church found in 1894 should be "stirred into the mix of documentation that we possess regarding Joseph Smith’s First Vision, but certainly not that it’s a primary-source document of pivotal importance".

His qualification makes me wonder what he means by stirring it into the mix, though. I'd suggest that any document that deserves to be stirred into the mix of documentation regarding Joseph's first vision ought to carry some importance. It sounds like he wants to stir it vigorously enough that it dissolves and can't be detected any longer. I guess that is "interesting" and "worth noting".

[_Kishkumen]

Actually, in the spirit of being counter-intuitive, I'm going to defend old Peterson here. He has at least (1) engaged with criticism of his opinion-journalism on the First Vision by producing something other than self-pity or polemic, and (2) pulled out a source which seems to be genuinely new to most people here.

I also think that he shouldn't be held to academic standards of pedagogy on his blog. I can't imagine the rest of us would want to be judged in that way for our online activity. He's essentially engaging in journalism here, just as he was in his Deseret NEws article, and that's the appropriate yardstick by which to measure him.

He has no historical case, of course, but that's a flaw that's inherent in the materials he has to work with. If that's the criticism, it essentially reduces to "DCP shouldn't believe in Mormonism", which seems a little redundant to me.

You are very generous, Johannes. Yes, he did not engage in self-pity or polemic. Kudos for that. Of course, he is happy to refrain from self-pity and polemic when he is not in the mode of engaging with his foes more directly.

I agree with you to a degree in your blog argument, but, I ask, when does it get better? When does he offer a reasoned analysis of the relative merits of different pieces of evidence? When does he concede that a particular reminiscence may not be as valuable as others, for reasons apparent to any responsible historian?

The blog cannot simply be a dodge. If he engages in no scholarly analysis of the evidence anywhere, then his drive-by blogging stands in stark contrast with that silence. He wants to say, "I offered the evidence," without ever submitting it to a sustained historical investigation. For someone who spends as much time as he does defending Smith, you would think he also had the time for making sure his position really stands up to scrutiny and then demonstrating how it does.

Most of all, I beg to differ with you when you claim that his only other alternative is to deny his Mormon faith altogether. No. I think not. What is at stake is his position as the ever faithful comforter of the discomfited Mormon. For every Peterson I would wager there are a few faithful LDS people who recognize that Joseph Smith's story changed as his theological understanding changed, who are comfortable with the idea that perhaps Smith's memory altered with time for one reason or another. Peterson insists that the two personages version is the original because that is what he must do to retain his credibility as the loyal and faithful defender of correlated modern Mormonism.

No one is asking Peterson not to believe. Least of all I. I think it is wonderful to adhere to a faith tradition. How one does so is the real question. One can either embrace the historical evidence or try to weasel around it and hold onto untenable positions. Too often apologists do the latter. That is where they fail the faithful. That is where they betray themselves and their faith.

ETA: LOL! I see he conceded. Hah! I guess he showed me!