Steve Benson's bizarre behavior on the RfM board

[_marg]

Marg, do you find Dan Vogel in any way to be a Mormon Apologist?

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.

[_Jersey Girl]

The reason I linked to the Bob McCue thread wasn't to debate whether or not civil discourse is preferable to "persuade", which is his main point, but to demonstrate that even Bob found Steve's behavior unacceptable. Clearly our reaction was not abnormal and based on some bias against Steve.

There is just no way around it, in my opinion. His behavior during that period was really strange. Why the heck start so many threads about the same topic within hours of one another? I don't care how articulate and intelligent a person is, when they engage in that sort of obsessive behavior, usually it means something's up. (that has nothing to do with the "target" of the obsessive behavior)

beastie,

The first thread in which I replied to Benson was locked. I don't know why it was locked but that could be one reason he created others? I didn't check the others threads to see if they were locked and I don't recognize a symbol for locked threads on RFM. Is there one?

Jersey Girl

[_beastie]

Threads over there lock down after they reach a certain number of responses. Or was it locked down with few responses?

I do not know of a symbol they use to indicate a thread has been locked.

[_truth dancer]

I am late to this discussion...

I haven't read the whole thread but sort of skimmed a few posts. I haven't read RFM for quite some time so missed whatever is going on.

But let me speak to the issue of Dan's perspective and character.

I have yet to see anyone who is as open to learning and gathering information as is Dan. I have also yet to see anyone who is more interested in really discovering history. Further I have yet to see anyone who is more thorough in his research.

I can't emphasize this enough.

I've known Dan for several years. He is a good friend of mine. I've seen how he reseaches. I've seen how he works. I've personally seen how carefully he looks at every little thing regardless of whose "side" it represents. Ya'll have no idea of what he goes through for each and every little bit of information.. to validate it, confirm it, authenticate it.

I guarantee you that if Dan came across information that altered his perspective he would quickly and openly change his position. He is not stuck on a position nor is he out to prove his point. He knows his stuff and will debate with the best of them but this is not to say he isn't willing to look at new information.

I suppose there is a fine line between trying to represent Joseph Smith in an honest way and being an apologist or critic. I don't really know how to make the distinction but I will tell you that Dan is more concerned with an honest picture than anyone I know.

The apologists think he is to critical, the critics think he is too positive in his approach. I think this is good evidence that he is doing his best to discover and present as accurately as possible the reality of the story.

I've said this before... Dan has the upmost integrity. He is extraordinarily careful in his research. He has extremely high standards.

Disagree or agree, I would challenge anyone to find a more decent man and honest historian.

~dancer~

[_Jersey Girl]

Threads over there lock down after they reach a certain number of responses. Or was it locked down with few responses?

I do not know of a symbol they use to indicate a thread has been locked.

Ah, thanks for explaining that. i think that first thread that I posted on had alot of posts.

[_skippy the dead]

Yes, skippy, you're still special... maybe even a special spirit.... especially since you ignored the post where I already sang your praises right before the one you posted and TOLD you it worked (snicker)

see, I had to call you on that one because you smacked me down on the beyotch thing

(drat!! As always, I'm not as cool as I had hoped...I should have learned that by now, my teenage daughter is pretty insistent on that point)

Yeah - I saw your post after mine went up. I'd composed mine, got distracted by something shiny somewhere, then hit submit without checking to see if anything new had happened. Oops.

Beyotch. :o)

[_marg]

Your post screams of bias, marg. You have assumed - without a shred of justification - that Dan has created a "moderate" theory (moderate? how does stating a religious fraud believed his own teachings equate a "moderate" theory?) with an eye to somehow appealing to apologists. Steve, OTOH, is just looking for the truth.

The PF theory is moderate because Smith is viewed as sincere whereas the critics who do not accept that Smith could possibly have been sincere are extreme (as opposed to moderate). And a more moderate view that Smith was sincere in motivation and beliefs is more accepting by apologists.

I notice Beastie that you have not acknowledged my point that when Craig Criddle offered to discuss the Rigdon Spalding theory Dan declined and said he deferred to 2 specific individuals who he mentioned hd studied and rejected it.

Could it be that perhaps you are biased in favor of Dan's theory based on emotion rather than objectivity? How do you account for his dismissal of the spalding theory when he acknowledges he's not prepared to debate it but instead defers to others?

That is the exact attitude presented on RFM. Do you really not see the slightest problem with it?

I'm not sure what you mean by exact attitue. I said it appears to me that Steve's primary motivation is "truth". I base that on the information he's presented in his posts about himself. I just don't see a personal motivation for him, other than getting to or exposing the "truth".

But this doesn't mean I think Steve is a better person than Dan or anything of the sort, but I do think Dan's argument (not the person)is deficient in good reasoning because he is avoiding all the data, in particular data related to the Rigdon - Spalding theory. Here is in my opinion a well written and reasoned post addressing these issues taken from RFM.

Subject: Certainty vs. Probability
Date: Jan 26 02:35
Author: Ambrosia Moretta



You are right, certainty is not possible.

Furthermore, Dan Vogel's exploration of the issue of Joseph Smith's internal motivation is interesting and worthwhile. At the end of the day, it will always be doomed to the realm of speculation because nobody here and not even any of Joseph Smith's contemporaries can know with any certainty what motivated him internally.

However, we can look to circumstantial evidence and assess probabilities. For example, what were Joseph Smith's likely motivations for using revelations to justify getting into the bloomers of so many women, married, unmarried, young enough to be his own daughters, old enough to be his older sisters, while he was legally married to one long-suffering woman? What were Joseph Smith's likely motivations when even the Book of Mormon and the main revelation on polygamy (D&C 132) contradict and condemn the manner in which Joseph Smith practiced (and practiced and practiced) polygamy - particularly since there is no indication that Joseph was trying to raise up seed with his secret plural wives?

Unfortunately, although Dan is and should be quite conversant with the historical facts, his analyses and conclusions at times seem to be highly counterintuitive and at odds with a conventional understanding of human nature. His efforts to square the round hole of the Helen Kimball affair for instance have not been an effective defense of his theories regarding Joseph Smith's general state of mind and religious motivation.

The debate is interesting and Dan's contributions are welcome. In terms of probabilities and the balance of evidence, however, he has a long way to go before he can make a persuasive case that Joseph Smith was genuinely driven by religious ("pious") motivations, rather than by crass self interest.

Beastie

You know, some people on RFM responded to me that they disliked the PF theory because they felt it gave Smith an "out", or may encourage believers. THAT is an attitude that leads to looking for a theory that pleases you in some way, or suits your purposes, rather than just looking for the truth.

One shouldn't look for any theory to match what one wants to believe, one should let the evidence lead to the best fit theory.

[_marg]

I guarantee you that if Dan came across information that altered his perspective he would quickly and openly change his position. He is not stuck on a position nor is he out to prove his point. He knows his stuff and will debate with the best of them but this is not to say he isn't willing to look at new information.

He was unwilling to discuss the Rigdon- spalding theory with Craig Criddle when offered. I actually very much like Dan's reasoning as presented in most arguments but there are a few times when find him evasive. In recent posts I noticed this and if you'd like I could do research to give you examples. But I don't want to tear Dan apart over this rather unimportant PF issue. However I understand why vocal RFMer's..well respected in that community for their knowledge are aggressive against it.

The apologists think he is to critical, the critics think he is too positive in his approach. I think this is good evidence that he is doing his best to discover and present as accurately as possible the reality of the story.

He may very well be doing his best, but I'm not sold on his reasoning on some issues and neither are others who have been critical. No one is faulting him for his research...but it is the reasoning for some of his opinions which some are finding fault with.

I've said this before... Dan has the upmost integrity. He is extraordinarily careful in his research. He has extremely high standards.

Disagree or agree, I would challenge anyone to find a more decent man and honest historian.

Sure, he's decent, honest, polite, articulate, a good debater, does tremendous commendable work worthy of praise and recognition...but on a few issues which are speculative in nature he tends to be evasive and reluctant to acknowledge data and the most probable conclusion it leads to.

[_Jersey Girl]

I am late to this discussion...

I haven't read the whole thread but sort of skimmed a few posts. I haven't read RFM for quite some time so missed whatever is going on.

But let me speak to the issue of Dan's perspective and character.

I have yet to see anyone who is as open to learning and gathering information as is Dan. I have also yet to see anyone who is more interested in really discovering history. Further I have yet to see anyone who is more thorough in his research.

I can't emphasize this enough.

I've known Dan for several years. He is a good friend of mine. I've seen how he reseaches. I've seen how he works. I've personally seen how carefully he looks at every little thing regardless of whose "side" it represents. Ya'll have no idea of what he goes through for each and every little bit of information.. to validate it, confirm it, authenticate it.

I guarantee you that if Dan came across information that altered his perspective he would quickly and openly change his position. He is not stuck on a position nor is he out to prove his point. He knows his stuff and will debate with the best of them but this is not to say he isn't willing to look at new information.

I suppose there is a fine line between trying to represent Joseph Smith in an honest way and being an apologist or critic. I don't really know how to make the distinction but I will tell you that Dan is more concerned with an honest picture than anyone I know.

The apologists think he is to critical, the critics think he is too positive in his approach. I think this is good evidence that he is doing his best to discover and present as accurately as possible the reality of the story.

I've said this before... Dan has the upmost integrity. He is extraordinarily careful in his research. He has extremely high standards.

Disagree or agree, I would challenge anyone to find a more decent man and honest historian.

~dancer~

Hello TD,

I have not read Dan's book and only have my observations of the Benson interactions to go on. I have to say that based on that, your comments above regarding Dan's integrity and being careful about details were evidenced in those particular threads. His responses were temperate and he sought precise descriptors of Joseph Smith's alleged marriages, rape, involvement with young women and evidence. While not even close to the intellectual caliber of Dan, I tried to do the same. Steve's responses appeared to be along the lines of sensationalized bashing rather than discussion.

Jersey Girl

[_marg]

His responses were temperate and he sought precise descriptors of Joseph Smith's alleged marriages, rape, involvement with young women and evidence.
Jersey Girl

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?