Steve Benson's bizarre behavior on the RfM board

[_Gazelam]

Let me be perfectly clear in this.

The Story of Adam and Eve as presented in the various accounts throughout scripture is a foundational doctrine in all christian faiths. It is not possible to believe in Christ without believeing in The Fall of Adam.

To preach against Adam and declare that the story of the Fall is nothing more than a story is to preach against Christ. It is not possible to blend the two, either the creation of this world occured as testified in the scriptures and by the Holy Ghost or it did not.

I stand with the prophets. There is no evidence concerning the theory of human evolution, just speculation and nothing more.

[_Dr. Shades]

There is no evidence concerning the theory of human evolution, just speculation and nothing more.

The Dude, care to handle this one?

[_The Dude]

Let me be perfectly clear in this.

The Story of Adam and Eve as presented in the various accounts throughout scripture is a foundational doctrine in all christian faiths. It is not possible to believe in Christ without believeing in The Fall of Adam.

To preach against Adam and declare that the story of the Fall is nothing more than a story is to preach against Christ. It is not possible to blend the two, either the creation of this world occured as testified in the scriptures and by the Holy Ghost or it did not.

So you think the earth was formed before their was light? You think it was all done in six days, exactly as testified in the scriptures? Or do you tone it down a little bit and bend the interpretation to fit your 17th century understanding of science? Why not go a little further, read a few books, see what great evidence there is for evolution, and claim for yourself a 20th century understanding of science?

I stand with the prophets.

Which prophets? And what do you say about the prophets who don't take your backward stance on evolution?

There is no evidence concerning the theory of human evolution, just speculation and nothing more.

Yes... your backward stance on evolution.

There is no evidence concerning Adam and Eve and the Fall of Man, just ancient scripture. There are other ancient scriptures that say different things, such as the Hindu scriptures that say the universe, the earth, and all life (including human) were never created, but go through continual cycles of creation and destruction. It's fundementally different from Genesis. When relying on scripture, why believe the Hebrew system instead of the Hindu? (There are more Hindus, by the way.)

[_Gazelam]

Dude: "So you think the earth was formed before their was light?"

First, the chaotic elements were gathered together from the unorganised dust of the universe. That is why in the preceeding verses the earth was without form and void. Then comes the verse: "Let there be light" at this point the elements are heated and the matter then purified, ready now to use in the formation of a planet.

Dude: " Which prophets? "

Of coarce the Hebrew Prophets. Hindu? I've spoken with Hindus, they're religion makes no sence whatsoever, and abolishs the divinity and prospect of mankind. Hindu belief is an abomination.

[_Tarski]

Let me be perfectly clear in this.

The Story of Adam and Eve as presented in the various accounts throughout scripture is a foundational doctrine in all christian faiths. It is not possible to believe in Christ without believeing in The Fall of Adam.

To preach against Adam and declare that the story of the Fall is nothing more than a story is to preach against Christ. It is not possible to blend the two, either the creation of this world occured as testified in the scriptures and by the Holy Ghost or it did not.

I stand with the prophets. There is no evidence concerning the theory of human evolution, just speculation and nothing more.

Oh my! We have a live one. Are you getting your science education from Kent Hovind's Dinosaur Adventure Land?

There is mountains (literally) of evidence for evolution and it's theoretical power is unparalleled in science. Given my background in theoretical physics you might think that I would be more sure of the correctness of physics. But I am more impressed by the power of evolution. To not believe in evolution is like seeing human footprints equally spaced along a beach and declaring that it was only speculation that someone was walking there. Right! Maybe each pair of foot prints was put there by different persons each having just come down from the sky and stood there only to be taken back up. The linear ordering of the footprints is a coincidence eh?

Instead of inviting you to read a book (since you will claim to have read it) I will just ask you point blank to counter the arguments. Lets start with Dennett's book "Darwin's Dangerous Idea". Where is is reasoning off (page number please)? Or maybe the easier book by Kenneth Miller (a theist no less). He demolishes anti-evolutionary thinking. At what point is his thinking wrong (page number please)?

Now in the other direction I haven't seen a good anti-evolutionary argument yet and I used to wish one would come along. What do you have? Some misguided misuse of thermodynamics? Some failure of imagination about complexity? A supposed case of "irreducible complexity"?

[_Gazelam]

Tarski, Scientists can't even peg down a date for the great leap of animal to man. You yourself state that its just a theory.

[_Tarski]

Tarski, Scientists can't even peg down a date for the great leap of animal to man. You yourself state that its just a theory.

There was no great leap and I see you have the usual creationist confusion about the uses of the word "theory".

Theory of Evolution
Number Theory
Set Theory
Gravitational Theory
Quantum Theory
The Theory of Electromagnetism.
The Germ Theory of contageous disease.

Theory often refers to that conceptual structure that we use to make sense of the "raw" facts. In this context it certainly doesn't mean something like a "tentative hypothesis". Natural selection is way way past that.

By the way, "great leap from animal to man"???? Humans are animals.

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

I hope you don't mind if I take issue with some of your statements here of the past few days. For convenience, I have arranged my comments by topic. Sorry for length.


WHY I STARTED POSTING ON RFM

Apparently D. Vogel didn’t post on the RFM board with the intent of debating/discussing whether or not J.Smith was a “pious fraud”, but others forced him into that debate. Smith as “pious fraud” is his position, it’s in his book (an insignificant aspect of it) and he’s not backed away from this position so far in discussions on MB’s. He also knows the overall general sentiment of vocal RFMers are dead set against PF theory, so given his position and experience there isn’t much point for him to continue discussing it there.

I have no reason to back away from my position. And why should the vocal critics of pious fraud be allowed to run the board?

But I didn't go there to start a debate, but to discuss the Helen Whitney documentary. Ken Clark and I were having a nice discussion, when Cabbie showed up to start trouble. He had used Clark in the past to support his Narcissistic Personality Dissorder theory, which he uses to argue against the pious fraud theory. Cabbie started taunting me to bring up PF and see how I would be received. I pointed out to him that Clark had just said:

"I also added that I thought Joseph Smith was a world champion rationalizer. I told her [Whitney] that everything I read indicated to me that he could rationalize anything, if he thought it benefitted him or someone else in some way. I pointed out that Dan Vogel had it right when he pointed out examples of Joseph Smith's willingness to lie (pious liar) if it helped bring a soul to God (or not)."

Clark had also just complained:

"I put myself in a no-win position. Exmos will criticize my effort for not being critical enough. ... Loyal members will criticize me for my disloyalty after the church paid me 'sacred thithing junds' for 27 years. But I still feel good about my efforts."

I said, welcome to my world Ken. Cabbie has threatened me several times, claiming that he will use his (armature) knowledge of psychology to hurt me. What a nut! Any way, Cabbie never responded to any of my arguments against NPD, but instead organized some of the attacks, during which he would post in the guise of an understanding therapist and try (rather incorrectly) to diagnose me and imply that I was in denial about Joseph Smith. Give me a break!


DEBATE BECOMES GRANDSTANDING

Beastie, what I remember is people arguing against the "pious fraud" theory, not people jumping on Vogel as a person. The fact that someone argues against an idea such as "pious fraud" regarding Smith does not mean they haven't considered it. You seem to refuse to accept that people can rightly criticize the Smith "pious fraud" idea.

There was some substantive discussions, but there was also a lot of unnecessary ridicule of anyone who defended the theory or objected to some of the weak criticisms. Many at RfM were not satisfied with debating the topic and letting everyone decide for themselves what they wanted to believe. It quickly degenerated into a campaign of ridicule and intimidation, where it became impossible to have meaningful dialogue.

Some over there, Benson in particular, think that when one of them has responded to me that debate is over and it's time for a victory dance. They seem to believe that there has to be a winner. They can't believe that their arguments might not be convincing to some, and it is this attitude that carries them into their excesses. I do not insist that everyone must believe Joseph Smith had sincere motives; it's just a theory that makes sense of some of the evidence that opponents want to overlook. I notice that sometimes when I respond to their response, there is no follow up by them.

You are not innocent Beastie. I went and looked at the RFM board. Jan 21 you started a thread "New Religious Movement Leaders (related to pious fraud)." Essentially it was an attempt at presenting evidence (a quote taken from an FBI site) to be used in support of the Smith "Pious Fraud" theory.

Benson (only one of the responders to your post) responded with "Smith was an irreligious and insincere reprobate, anything but personally pious and everything fraudulent. New Testament "

And what was YOUR response to his post Beastie? subject: So Says Benson!!
content: All bow your heads and say "yes".

He has a right to an opinion. But you are attacking him personally and in doing so it is YOU who is escalating that discussion into personal attack and derision. It didn't develop much further, but it could have.

It's not easy getting Benson's attention. Beastie probably shouldn't have said it that way, but once Benson and others polarize the board that's generally how things escalate. All I know is, many on the board were offended by the behavior Benson and Co., and chewed them out. But they remain unrepentant. Benson acknowledged he was out of line, but argued that it wasn't necessary to get along. So, not even Benson agrees with your defense of his behavior here. What Beastie was trying to say to Benson was: Do you have more than your assertion to offer in response? Apparently, the answer was, No.

In general I found Steve's post to be spot on, with whomever he was responding to. I came across a post or two of Dan's, in response to Steve which seemed to me to be evasive.

I don't know which ones you refer to, but I think it's possible that you are confusing careful with evasive. Steve seemed to make the same mistake. When he asked if Joseph Smith had sex with Helen Mar and I responded that I "assumed" he did, Steve accused me of being evasive. From my perspective, he is too willing to jump to (unqualified) conclusions with little evidence. Compton said the evidence is "ambiguous". Now, since I was "assuming" he was right about Joseph Smith having sex with Helen Mar, why didn't he just proceed with his argument? Why did he focus on what he thought was a character flow of mine and accuse me of hedging and not being "forthright" in my answers? He then proceeded with his ad hominal attack on the strawman that he had constructed.


DOUBLE STANDARD

You didn’t “simply” report what went on, you made Steve out as a moron who didn’t understand the concept of “proof” so you had to explain it to him and he was unable to answer your questions.

Perhaps Steve wasn’t focused on or interested in your question of legal age of rape at the time in Illinois. Perhaps by underage Steve meant maturity level. Perhaps it wasn’t a matter of Steve “couldn’t answer” your question but that it wasn’t important to the issue of his point, so why should he.

Now, I'm wondering why you are so willing to make excuses for Steve, when in the very same situation you would accuse me of being evasive? It seems your assessment is based on a double standard. Little wonder your opinion is contradicted by many posters, who were during the exchange and even now continue in an attempt to hold Steve and the others accountable for their behavior.



MODERATE APOLOGIST VS. RUDE DEFENDER OF TRUTH

I can understand why people such as Steve would refer to him as an apologist. Dan seems more interested in holding a position of being a moderate with regards to Smith than of where the evidence leads to. And this is understandable. By being moderate he has a greater chance of being tolerated and heard by the Mormon community and apologists, than someone who takes a harsher position with regards to J. Smith. And one can not persuade anyone, unless one can get them to listen.

Being moderate is not what I aim for; it's being credible. Being moderate is a relative label that can change depending on who is doing the assessment.

So Dan and Steve’s objectives are in my view different. Steve doesn’t seem to care about persuading Mormon apologists. He seems interested in where the evidence leads to or “truth” rather than in persuading the other side using tactics. Dan has a vested interested in being heard via his book. He would lose a large potential audience if he didn’t offer a moderate view which leaves open the possibility of Smith being sincere.

This is an interesting analysis--too bad it's not true. First, I'm forming my historical interpretations to intentionally be moderate so as to persuade apologists. My main audience are other scholars, who quite frankly have no patience for debunkers like Benson. I also try to write in such a way as to be accessible to any audience. Anyone who writes or speaks is trying to persuade. However, I have been criticized for alienating all believers in the supernatural in the first pages of my introduction.

Second, that you characterize Benson as the fearless defender of the "truth" is rather naïve. Everyone is trying to defend the truth as they see it. One can do it just as well without resorting to tactics like grandstanding and shutting the discussion down. To suggest that I'm not interested in the truth is presumptuous and insulting. This seems to be a RfM trait: assume all those who disagree with the party line are disingenuous. That's kind of like Mormons who assume anti-Mormons are liars.

So the objectives one has makes a difference in the approach one should or needs to take in discussion. If the objective is persuasion then “truth” and/or harshness is not the best tactic to take when arguing with the other side. If “truth” is one’s main objective then substance and evidence not process or how one argues is what is primarily important.

Are you serious? You really believe that being persuasive involves lying and civility? And speaking the truth involves harshness, or at least harshness is excusable if one speaks the truth? Who decides that? And since everyone thinks they are right in a debate, everyone therefore has the right to speak harshly. So, apparently, those who speak respectfully know they are wrong and, because their argument has no substance, must resort to persuasion (i.e., lying and civility).

Benson doesn't simply follow the evidence to the truth, because nobody does that. We all approach the evidence with presuppositions. The facts don't simply speak for themselves. Facts become facts when we use them as evidence. We come to the facts with a perspective that gives them meaning. I try to understand Joseph Smith's actions from the perspective of his own times, and those who want to call Joseph Smith a rapist aren't. That's not trying to be moderate; it's trying to be historically minded and avoiding the presentist fallacy. You say you want to just follow the evidence, then why not include that perspective in your assessment of the evidence? It's like judging Thomas Jefferson harshly because he owned slaves. No one expects you to approve of slavery or not be morally outraged by it, just to suspend your present-minded assumptions.


PIOUS FRAUD AND SHUTTING DOWN DISCUSSION

I think while there is little toleration for anything said pro Mormonism on the RFM board, I also think on this particular issue of “pious fraud” that there has been an attempt by those who consider the possibility that Smith may have been a sincere individual and “pious fraud” to dismiss critics of the Pious fraud theory as..extreme, closed minded, intolerant, irrational, angry, unable to objectively evaluate J. Smith because of emotional baggage. That is arguing against critics fallaciously using ad hominem. In otherwords the argument being made is that the critic’s argument against the pious fraud theory should be dismissed because they are too angry and emotional to be objective about J. Smith.

That's not the position of those defending PF. It stopped being about PF with the extreme behavior. We wanted those kind of antics to stop, so that meaningful dialogue could resume. But that hasn't happened yet. But when one acts in such a manner, one does risk losing the point. It's a good tactic if you are losing, but a bad one if you are winning.


APPOLOGIST

I don't view him as an apologist. He certainly is not a believer that the Book of Mormon is God inspired. But I do think some of his ideas can be viewed as leaning towards or in support of an apologist's position.

RfMers are not always right, and apologists are not always wrong. But what apologist believes Joseph Smith is a fraud or the Book of Mormon is fiction?


RAPE

Right but were critics such as Randy J or Steve arguing for legal rape conducted by J. Smith? If not, legal evidence of what constitutes rape at the time is not very relevant. Do you think that H. Mar appreciated fully what the marriage entailed? Do you think coercive unethical tactics were used on H. Mar by people who had or represented authority over her? Do you think she was fully informed and willingly with the mental maturity of an adult married Smith?

Yes, the issue was about the legal definition of rape. I started a thread with the question: on what grounds do some RfMers call Joseph Smith a rapist. Matt and Deconstructor, If I recall correctly, presented arguments for "statuary rape" and rape by deception, and insisted that Joseph Smith violated 19th century law. I believe they (and like minds) still hold that position. Your questions above imply the legal definitions we discussed.

When Benson got involved he seemed to back off the term rape, and said Joseph Smith's behavior was lecherous. So, I said, it seems we agree and offered other terms like sexual and emotional abuse. Then, he started asking leading questions of me (much like you have here) that were obviously headed in the direction of using rape in the legal sense. I objected to his tactics, and told him to stop asking cagey questions in an effort to entrap me in contradiction and just state his case. And you say Benson doesn't use tactics. It was at this point, that Steve began his barrage of intimidation, taunting, and insult. Needless to say, he shut down the discussion. And whenever I showed up, he and his cohorts would start the same tactics to run me off.

On your quote of Ambrosia Moretta: crass sexual motivations vs. pious fraud is a false dichotomy. As I have said over and over, what Joseph Smith did in 1843 to Helen Mar has very little to do with why he began dictating the Book of Mormon in 1828.

Proof of what? That Smith had sex with Kimballl? And do you think Steve doesn’t appreciate that he doesn’t have conclusive evidence for that? But one shouldn’t dismiss the most probable likely conclusion that the data leads one to conclude with probability ..just because there isn’t conclusive evidence. Surely given what is known about Smith, it is reasonable to assume his intent was a sexual relationship with Kimball whether or not it occurred is moot in judging Smith’s ethical character.

You just said "probable" and "assume" with regard to Smith having sex with HMK. That kind of care is what Benson attacked. So, watch out!

I personally do think that the description rape is appropriate given Kimball’s statement of not appreciating what the marriage entailed. The inference which can be drawn while not conclusive indicates she likely meant she didn’t appreciate the marriage entailed sex in the present life. Smith as an authority figure used his power to coerce both her parents and her into the marriage. Assuming she had sex, she would have been raped by deception. That some individuals might take offense to the use of the word rape because they find it inflammatory does not mean the word is inappropriate. Or that some individuals might assume the word rape can only be used in a legal sense is their mistake. Can you think of a better word to use to describe an individual who has been coerced by means of undue influence into a marriage (which would entail sex)?

HMK said she didn't know the ceremony would restrict her attending dances or other activities with her peers. She said nothing about sex. You seem to assume that someone intentionally deceived Helen Mar, when apparently the misunderstanding her's. Sure, she was coerced by her parents, but what arranged marriage isn't? But does that fulfill the legal definition of marriage by deception? In the discussion before Benson arrived, I was quoted these statutes. So, I responded to the legal definitions. When it became obvious that that line of argument wasn't working, then moral definitions were offered, which are misleading, inaccurate, and inflammatory.

Dan focuses on legal def’’n of rape. It’’s obvious to me that people would not likely in this discussion be referring to legalities of rape when they say ““rape by deception.”” The only way he can argue there was no deception is if one is to assume Smith in his marriages truly thought God was telling him to marry. But given Smith’’s ethical character and history, it is a stretch to assume that he employed no deception.

Yes, I think it was Matt and some other poster, who cited three conditions for legal statutory rape. One was marriage by deception. My argument was that the statute didn't obviously refer to Joseph Smith's situation, but to those men who pretended to be single. In Joseph Smith's case, those involved knew he was married and were voluntarily violating the law. I also explained in another place that to use the statute in the manner suggested would require the court to determine Joseph Smith's revelation was false--not likely. The court would likely bypass religious claims and the charge would be bigamy or adultery.

Hold on a sec. Yes we can determine whether Smith had sex with underage women. We can look at the norms of the time, we can look at the circumstances surrounding the various cases (his polygamous marriages.) What is really important here is Smith’s ethical character. Did he break laws, did he use undue influence over others, did he take advantage of the vulnerable that sort of thing. Limiting the discussion to ONLY whether or not Smith broke the law of his time, is not the heart of the matter.

We all agreed Joseph Smith was unethical. The issue was about using the word rape.


SPAULDING ARGUMENT AGAINST PIOUS FRAUD

When this discussion was going on many months back in which you participated as did Dan, I remember Craig Criddle asking Dan if he'd like to argue/discuss the Spalding/Rigdon theory with him. Dan's response was along the lines that he was not fully informed to be able to debate/discuss it with Craig. He deferred to others knowledgeable on the theory in basing his rejection of it(I believe 2 individuals but don't remember their names).

They didn't just ask if I wanted to discuss the Spaulding theory, they were wanting a knockout, drag-out fight over it. I was new to the board and wanted to talk about more meaningful things. I told them that I was no expert in the Spaulding theory and would rather defer to Lester Bush (in an old issue of Dialogue) and Matthew Roper (in FARMS Review). That was my way of trying to shift the discussion to what I know best--JS and the Book of Mormon.

Later, when Spaulding came up and someone made an argument, I responded to the argument. Of course, they said, "We thought you didn't know anything about the Spaulding theory?" To which I responded, "I said I wasn't an expert; I didn't say I didn't know anything about it."

If Rigdon was the main mastermind behind the Book of Mormon and start-up of Mormonism that would put a large kink in the Smith "pious fraud" theory. As knowledgable as Dan is on Mormonism and Smith, if he isn't fully knowledgable on the Rigdon/Spalding theory he lacks a vital component affecting the Smith "pious fraud" theory.

Look, Marg, I know enough about the theory, to know that it's a waste of precious time. I can't believe any former Mormon would give it any credence; I thought it was just the pet theory of Evangelicals. To those who know the contents of the Book of Mormon thoroughly, as I and others do, the Spaulding theory makes no sense whatsoever. There are just too many autobiographical elements in the book and post-1816 environmental influences. There is no evidence linking Rigdon with the production of the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith dictated it in front of witnesses, who explicitly state he used no manuscript. His head was in the hat, and he dictated from his own brain (except for the long chapters from the KJV).

Now, as to the use of the Spaulding theory to discount the pious fraud theory. You are attempting to shift the burden of proof to me to disprove the Spaulding theory in order to prove the pious fraud theory, when the onus is on you to prove your thesis. So far, the Spaulding theory has very little to support it, and very little support from serious Book of Mormon scholars.

I think most people if not all, respect Dan for his research, his writing abilities, his gentlemanly conduct in discussions, but they aren’’t completely sold on him being open to objectively looking at all the data which could impact the Smith as pious fraud theory. And the question is why isn’’t he open to all the data? Why does he defer to others on the Rigdon-Spalding theory, given his position of being a researcher/historian in Mormonism?

This is where I think you are naïve about what a scholar does. Because it is impossible to follow every strand in the evidence, a scholar follows the best leads--those that are most likely to pay off. No theory is thoroughly investigated, because it is impossible. In the philosophy of science it's called the problem of underdeterminism. Controlling all the data in a subject is also not possible, and so I have reviewed the evidence for and against the Spaulding theory and have concluded that it is a false lead. I don't need to become an expert in the Spaulding theory to know that it is weak and has no real explanatory power.

[_Jersey Girl]

Hello Dan,

Do you have handy, the quote by HMK that they used in those discussions as "proof" of a sexual relationship between Joseph Smith and HMK? I believe it was Deconstructor who originally posted it and referenced by Benson.

Jersey Girl

[_asbestosman]

When relying on scripture, why believe the Hebrew system instead of the Hindu? (There are more Hindus, by the way.)

Last I checked, there were far more Christians than Hindus.