beastie wrote: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.