Steve Benson's bizarre behavior on the RfM board

[_harmony]

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.

Depends on how you define "Christian".

[_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.

Depends on how you define "Christian".

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

[_The Dude]

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.

I assume Gaz is LDS. I also assume he is a troll and not really a bone-headed creationist. I could be wrong on both assumptions, I guess.

(I notice your link doesn't count Mormonism as it's own religion. Ouch! Kind of a slap in the face if you ask me.)

[_Mephitus]

hehe, time for me to throw a good sized wrench in the argument as well, There is just as much scientific evidence supporting christian creation story as there is in Asatru creation story. For those that are unfamiliar with it, ill post it below.

In the beginning there was no earth or heaven, no sand nor sea nor cooling waves. There was only Ginnungagap, a great void. In the north there was Nilfheim, and from Nilfheim's spring flowed eleven rivers, known as Elivagar. As the rivers flowed south, they cooled and hardened into ice. In the south, there was the world of Muspelheim, a firey world. The northern part of Ginnungagap became filled with the ice and hoar frost from the Elivagar. When that ice formed and was firm, a drizzling rain arose from the venomous rivers and poured over the ice where it cooled into rime, and one layer of ice formed on top of the other throughout Ginnungagap. The southern part of Ginnungagap was lit by the sparks and glowing embers which flew out of Muspelheim. Where the heat from the south met the coolness in the north the ice was thawed and it began to drip and by the might that sent the heat, life appeared in the drops of the running fluid and this fluid formed into the likeness of a man. He was given the name Ymir.

As the frost continued to thaw another form was created. This form became a cow called Audhumbla. From her teats flowed four rivers of milk and it was upon this that Ymir was fed. While he fed, Ymir slept, and while he slept a male and female frost giant grew from his armpits and one leg fathered a six headed troll with the other leg.

Audhumbla lived by licking the ice-blocks which were salty, and by the evening of the first day there appeared a man's hair where she licked. On the second day, a man's head appeared, and by the third day the whole man was freed from the ice. This man was called Buri. He had a son name Bor who married Bestla, who was the daughter of the giant Bolthurn. Bor and Bestla had three sons, Odhinn, Vili, and Ve.

There was great strife between the offspring of Ymir and the children of Bor and Bestla. Odhinn led his brothers against Ymir and they killed him. Ever since that time there has been hatred and enemity between the gods and the giants.

Odhinn and his brothers dragged Ymir's body into the void. His flesh became the earth, his blood the sea. His bones became the mountains, his hair the trees, and his teeth the stones. Odhinn and his brothers discovered maggots living in what had been Ymir's flesh. They turned these into the dwarves and dark elves and these beings reside in the depths of the earth, mining the ore and minerals beneath the mountains and hills. The world of the dwarves is known as Nidavellir and the world of the dark elves is called Svartalfheim. Odhinn and his brothers also discovered some fine creatures living in the soil formed from Ymir's flesh. They named these creatures light elves and placed them in the world known as Alfheim. As Ymir's blood flowed, it created a flood that killed all the giants, save one. Bergelmir escaped with his household and they made their escape in the first boat, a hollowed out tree-trunk.

The sons of Bor then took Ymir's skull and fashioned from it the sky and set it over the earth. Under each corner they placed a dwarf and it is from the names of these dwarves that we get the directions, North, South, East and West. The sons of Bor then took the sparks and burning embers that were flying about and cast them into the midst of Ginnungagap to light the heavens and the earth. They gave stations to all the stars and planets.

They then fashioned a world for the families of giants and this world is known as Jotunheim. Away from this land they fashioned a stronghold to surround the world, to defend it from the giants. This land was fashioned from Ymir's eyebrows, and it is called Midgard. They then took the brains of Ymir and cast them into the air and these became the storm-threatening clouds.

One day while Odhinn and his brothers were walking along the sea shore they came upon two tree trunks. The gods saw great beauty in the trunks and set forth to bring them to life. Odhinn gave them soul, Vili gave motion and sense, and Ve gave being and blooming hue. These beings were the first humans and they were called Ask and Embla. Midgard was given to them to inhabit.

Once the world had been created and the gods had placed the sun and moon in the sky they made night and day. Night is a beautiful giantess with a dark complexion and hair of midnight black. Night's first husband was a man called Naglifari. Their son is called Aud. Next, Night married Annar and their daughter is called Earth. Last she married Delling and their son was Day. Odhinn then took Night and Day and gave them horses and chariots to ride across the heavens.

The sun and moon are guided across the heavens by the children of Mundilfari. They were so fair and beautiful that he called the son, Moon, and the daughter, Sun. The gods became angry at his arrogance and took the brother and sister and put them in the sky where they draw the sun and moon across the sky in chariots. They made Sun drive the horses which drew the chariot of the sun that the gods had made to light the worlds from a spark which had flown from Muspelheim. The horses which draw this chariot are called Arvak and Alsvidh. Moon is made to guide the chariot that draws the moon across the sky. This chariot is drawn by Aldsvider. Sun and Moon can never pause in their journey because they are constantly pursued by the wolves Skoll and Hati.

Now that the earth was made and had been filled with all manner of beings the gods created a home for themselves. The gods then built for themselves a stronghold in the middle of the world and it is known as Asgard. They built a bridge to connect Asgard and Midgard, and this bridge is Bifrost. Asgard is sheltered by the great world tree, Yggdrasil, which touches upon all of the worlds.

And to think, this story PRE-DATES christianity. so which is more valid an argument?

[_Bond...James Bond]

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.

I assume Gaz is LDS. I also assume he is a troll and not really a bone-headed creationist. I could be wrong on both assumptions, I guess.

If Gaz is a troll he's the longest serving troll in history. As many rounds as we've gone I doubt he's a troll.

Bond

[_truth dancer]

Hi Gaz...

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.

Assuming you really believe this.... Are you unaware that many of the Brethren do indeed believe in Evolution? Do you think you could find even one BYU science professor who doesn't believe in evolution?

I'm not sure why you are holding to your 17th century belief when clearly the leaders of the church have moved on.

Evolution is no longer a "theroy". :-)

~dancer~

[_marg]

Hi Dan,

I skimmed your post and came to this part, the rest I'll address later

SPAULDING ARGUMENT AGAINST PIOUS FRAUD

I wrote: "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.

Okay you probably don't know Craig Criddle. He's a Stanford (Science) University Professor who is exmormon. Extremely knowledgable on the Book of Mormon. I've observed him in discussions over a number of years on www.2think.org. He's posted a few times on FAIR, a number of times on the exmormon board. He's not now a regular poster on boards. In the last few years he's devoted some time to this Spalding theory, discussed with Dale Broadhurst and others. Set up quite a good web site on it (which perhaps you might take a look at, just do a search on Craig Criddle)and last I heard was intending to write a second part. He was the one who early on at RFM asked you if you'd like to discuss the theory and your response to him was along the lines of you weren't that knowledgable but what defer to the people you mentioned above. Trust me on this Dan, he wouldn't have wanted a knock down fight. He discusses like you, no games, no personal attacks. It's a shame you didn't take him more seriously.

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."

There are a few people who probably would be worthwhile discussing this theory with you, who are quite knowledgable. Craig is not only knowledgable but extremely fair in discussion.

I wrote perivously: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.[/quote]

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.

You are now throwing out fallacious ad hominems against anyone who would adhere to the theory. That's not exactly the way to win points and/or convince.

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).

I'm not the one to argue against. Perhaps if Craig has the time or someone else more knowledgable on the theory they'd be willing to come here and discuss it with you in the forum which is moderated...but I'm not the one who would or could do it. And by the way, I don't find J. Smith's witnesses convincing. They'd tend to lack objectivity in this don't you think?

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've not seen you argue against the Spalding theory with any serious Book of Mormon scholars Dan. You seem very keen on dismissing it by reliance on authority. Just because some writers Fawn Brodie for example dismissed the theory does not mean they should be relied upon. I believe on RFM some of the knowledgable people on this are Jeff H. Randy J, maybe Deconstructor, definitely Craig and on Mad Dale. Have you argued/discussed publicly on message boards with any of these people this Spalding Rigdon theory? I appreciate the Spalding Rigdon theory is very involved, contains lots of data.

As far as shifting burden of proof. it's not as if the Smith as pious fraud idea is a strong theory. The Spalding theory does change the dynamics of the players and makes Rigdon the more likely pious fraud...if one is interested in whether or not anyone involved in the start up was a pious fraud. The burden may shift if one takes the Rigdon Spalding theory seriously, but then again Dan people were interested in meeting that burden by discussing it with you.


previously: 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? [/quote]

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.

And I think you are wrong on this Dan. It's too bad you couldn't have shown Craig the problems in the Rigdon -Spalding theory rather than replying to him you defer to others.

by the way Dan, would you discuss the Spalding theory here in the moderated forum if someone or someones knowledgeable on it would come and discuss it with you? This would be a good forum to do so. The only problem with this forum is if it were to be deleted later, this forum has been known to crash in the past. But it is stillbetter than the exmormon one which stays up only 2 weeks and the Mad one which is too heavily moderated.

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

I thought you would focus on the Spaulding red herring argument against pious fraud.

Okay you probably don't know Craig Criddle. He's a Stanford (Science) University Professor who is exmormon. Extremely knowledgable on the Book of Mormon. I've observed him in discussions over a number of years on www.2think.org. He's posted a few times on FAIR, a number of times on the exmormon board. He's not now a regular poster on boards. In the last few years he's devoted some time to this Spalding theory, discussed with Dale Broadhurst and others. Set up quite a good web site on it (which perhaps you might take a look at, just do a search on Craig Criddle)and last I heard was intending to write a second part. He was the one who early on at RFM asked you if you'd like to discuss the theory and your response to him was along the lines of you weren't that knowledgable but what defer to the people you mentioned above. Trust me on this Dan, he wouldn't have wanted a knock down fight. He discusses like you, no games, no personal attacks. It's a shame you didn't take him more seriously.

Well, I know a little about the Book of Mormon myself. I have also seen both Broadhurst's and Criddle's sites. Evidence for the Spaulding theory is extremely weak and amounts to wishful thinking. Sure, they have a mountain of sources (after all, it was the reigning theory for about 100 years). But the analysis of those sources is what is lacking: lack of critical tools, poor logic, and one ad hoc rationalization after another, beginning with the invention of a second manuscript.

When I first posted on RfM, there were a lot of rabble rousers I was trying to avoid. Of course, I didn't know Craig, but at that time I went to his site, but wasn't impressed with the argumentation. I could have engaged in a debate, but I didn't think it would be worth the effort. I also didn't know what a cherished theory it was among RfMers. Frankly, I and a lot of others are mystified by those who think there is anything to the Spaulding theory. I was formerly under the impression that the theory was pushed by Evangelicals, who don't know any better. Regardless, I referred to two studies that attempted to debunk the theory, but no one bothered to tell me why those studies were wrong. That would have been the place to start. And when Spaulding advocates started presenting evidence, I did respond but their defenses were very weak. So, I think I avoided an unnecessary headache. I think when one understands the content of the Book of Mormon as well as Joseph Smith's early history, the Spaulding theory no longer has the appeal. So, my method is to bring people up to speed on those issues and let Spaulding die a natural death.

by the way, I could find nothing on the link you gave to support your views about Spaulding. I'm sure Criddle is intelligent, but so was Nibley. Intelligence is no guarantee of sound arguments. Arguments and evidence are all that matter.

There are a few people who probably would be worthwhile discussing this theory with you, who are quite knowledgable. Craig is not only knowledgable but extremely fair in discussion.

Well, you seem sold on Spaulding based on the knowledge of others. Why do you choose to believe their arguments over the arguments of the vast majority of scholars who do no believe the Spaulding theory?

Dan: 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.

Marg: You are now throwing out fallacious ad hominems against anyone who would adhere to the theory. That's not exactly the way to win points and/or convince.

This is not an argument against the Spaulding theory. It is my honest reaction to the situation. I wouldn't want anyone to abandon the theory based on my personal reactions. But you avoided my first sentence.

I'm not the one to argue against. Perhaps if Craig has the time or someone else more knowledgable on the theory they'd be willing to come here and discuss it with you in the forum which is moderated...but I'm not the one who would or could do it. And by the way, I don't find J. Smith's witnesses convincing. They'd tend to lack objectivity in this don't you think?

Yet, you know enough to form an opinion about the theory and to use it against pious fraud. At least Beastie didn't defer to others in her discussions about pious fraud, but defended her position herself. But perhaps we should put your accusations of me to you. How is it that you can reject pious fraud based on evidence that you don't seem to understand or defend yourself?

Regarding objectivity: How is dismissing out of hand the testimony of believers any better than Mormon apologists who dismiss non-Mormon/anti-Mormon testimony, including the Spaulding witnesses? However, both believers and non-believers testified to Smith's method of dictating the Book of Mormon with his head in the hat. That's not to say he didn't use the Bible for the long chapters from the KJV, but the testimony is uniform for no manuscript being present from which Smith read. This is where some Spaulding theorists introduce elaborate conspiracy speculations.

I've not seen you argue against the Spalding theory with any serious Book of Mormon scholars Dan. You seem very keen on dismissing it by reliance on authority. Just because some writers Fawn Brodie for example dismissed the theory does not mean they should be relied upon. I believe on RFM some of the knowledgable people on this are Jeff H. Randy J, maybe Deconstructor, definitely Craig and on Mad Dale. Have you argued/discussed publicly on message boards with any of these people this Spalding Rigdon theory? I appreciate the Spalding Rigdon theory is very involved, contains lots of data.

Serious Book of Mormon scholars are rare. Many of the Spaulding advocates are weak on the Book of Mormon. I haven't relied on Brodie. I do point out that leading scholars are dismissive of Spaulding. But scholars are also dismissive of conspiracy theories in general. For example, serious scholars would also avoid debating some of the JFK assassination conspiracy theorists. Evolution scientists avoid debating with Creationists. This is mostly because no one wants to spend the time untangling the web of fallacious argumentation. I avoid it because the theory has little scholarly currency and devoting huge amounts of time to dismantle a minority theory is not economical.

As far as shifting burden of proof. it's not as if the Smith as pious fraud idea is a strong theory. The Spalding theory does change the dynamics of the players and makes Rigdon the more likely pious fraud...if one is interested in whether or not anyone involved in the start up was a pious fraud. The burden may shift if one takes the Rigdon Spalding theory seriously, but then again Dan people were interested in meeting that burden by discussing it with you.

Yes, people wanted to discuss it with me. But it's not about debating with me; it's about meeting the burden of proof to the scholarly community, and the theory hasn't done that. It is in the realm of wild speculation. The Spaulding theory is either true or it is not. There are no degrees of acceptance. Pious fraud is a completely different animal. When one discusses motives, there is never direct evidence. But assigning one motive to the exclusion of others is the reductionist fallacy. Pious fraud it a theoretical construct that explains more pieces of evidence than simple fraud. To maintain simple fraud one has to dismiss all evidence of sincerity as pretense. This inevitably leads to declaring Joseph Smith had no sincere religious beliefs whatsoever. Pious fraud forces people to listen closer to what Joseph Smith said and did--and a very complex person emerges, who is neither a complete hero or villain.

Dan: 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.

Marg: And I think you are wrong on this Dan. It's too bad you couldn't have shown Craig the problems in the Rigdon -Spalding theory rather than replying to him you defer to others.

I don't think you understood what I said about theory and underdeterminism. You are placing too much reliance on a Spaulding debate. I have already told you that such a notion is fallacious. You can't dismiss pious fraud based on another theory which has no definitive evidence in its favor. Given the lack of direct evidence, the outcome of such a debate could only be inconclusive (as with Creationists and JFK conspiracy theorists). However, we do have direct evidence that Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon, which overturning will require convoluted and cumbersome ad hoc rationalizations and special pleadings.

Why not defer to critics of the Spaulding theory? Why should I rehash arguments they should have dealt with on their own?

by the way Dan, would you discuss the Spalding theory here in the moderated forum if someone or someones knowledgeable on it would come and discuss it with you? This would be a good forum to do so. The only problem with this forum is if it were to be deleted later, this forum has been known to crash in the past. But it is stillbetter than the exmormon one which stays up only 2 weeks and the Mad one which is too heavily moderated.

I don't see why not. But rather than it being a one-on-one debate, I think it better that all be allowed to comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence. I'm very interested in various reactions. But it should be moderated with off-topic comments deleted.

I think the person defending the Spaulding theory should begin the discussion by outlining the strongest evidence (perhaps with links to longer discussions of each piece of evidence) so that we can see the entire flow of the arguments and conclusions. Then we can examine each point in more detail and debate the merits.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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.

....

Great to see you here, Dan. I hope you continue to participate. I've always enjoyed your writings. I have no idea why Steve Benson 'lost it' over at RfM, but if it led you here, then all the better. Welcome!

[_Dan Vogel]

Thanks Rollo. I have been lurking here for some time, but thought I would make some comments here on my recent experience at RfM and defend Beastie, since she was so kind to defend me.