Jump to content

Dan Vogel

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

127 Excellent


About Dan Vogel

  • Rank
    Separates Water & Dry Land

Recent Profile Visitors

1,927 profile views
  1. Of course, you are correct.
  2. Maybe you should view my videos and find out what I have said about their works. That would be a start. I have mostly commented on what Gee and Muhlestein have said about the Kirtland Egyptian papers as well as those produced in Nauvoo. Needless to say, none of their theories about those papers has anything to do with Egyptology.
  3. You won't have to wait much longer. The problem is that most of the parallels to early Jewish, Christian, or Muslim traditions are so weak that even when I can show that JS's contemporaries had access to them it doesn't matter because JS could not have used them anyway. Paralleling the BoA with traditions of his being thrown into a furnace or fire is a joke. JS's contemporaries knew about these stories, but the more likely source for the BoA is Facsimile 1. JS didn't need anything more than that. Anyway, the 8th video to my series will be on nineteenth-century sources compared to ancient ones.
  4. Just to clarify. The large plates didn’t exist until the 116-page manuscript was lost and a replacement text was needed. They are not mentioned until JS comes back to the beginning. The lost part likely named all those Nephite kings JS couldn’t remember and their reigns. The small plates were said to contain the more part of the religious history because JS had Nephi prophesy a lot. The original dictation probably had religious material similar to King Benjamin’s sermon in the early part of Mosiah, but Nephi was more prophetic, both about Nephite history and the history of the first readers of the Book of Mormon in nineteenth-century America. Nephi’s prophecies and Jacobs allegory of the olive tree were very detailed about Nephite history, which was something JS could not do in April 1828 with Martin Harris as scribe. This is why the BOM distinguishes the content of the large and small plates.
  5. Bob, I have you detail. You didn't seem to want to respond to it. Gee and Muhlestein give arguments that have nothing to do with Egyptology and therefore it doesn't require a degree to respond to those arguments. This means your argument that I don't have a degree in Egyptology is irrelevant. And, yes, I plan to publish my examination of the subject.
  6. Thanks. I'm trying to write the last chapter now. I can only do it part time because I'm mainly writing my JS biography on his Ohio/Missouri period due in about two years.
  7. Bob, you make no sense. Since Gee and Muhlestein have written on topics that do require their degrees in Egyptology, responding to them also requires no degree in Egyptology. I refer to their nonsense about a long scroll; their assertion that the entire BoA was dictated in July 1835; that W. W. Phelps authored the Grammar and Alphabet; that references in the text of the BoA to Fac. 1 were later insertions, etc. Once you get that right, parallels to Egyptian and Abrahamic legends no longer matter, especially since there are other explanations. What I show is that Gee and Muhlestein don’t know what they are talking about when it comes to early Mormon history and the JS Egyptian papers.
  8. Hi Bob. Of course, you are saying this without seeing the videos. You say we need less polemics, but your trying to dismiss the contributions of anyone but an Egyptologist is just that. I have only critiqued Gee and Muhlestein on their discussion of early Mormon history, sources, and the documents. None of which require a degree in Egyptology.
  9. Note that I do not claim this is a certain interpretation, only a reasonable one and not "perverse" as you claim. I don’t need to assume anything about JS Sr. one way or the other. If he was motivated to fulfill the guardian spirit’s requirement for Alvin and he dug Alvin up and published a cover story, it says nothing about his general character for honesty. This was a highly unusual circumstance. Good decent people succumb to con men all the time. I’m responding to Richard Anderson’s comment that Joseph Sr.’s notice in the paper was to quell rumor that Alvin had been exhumed in order to get the plates. There were only two full days for the word to get out about the cause of JS’s failure to get the plates, for the false rumor to be formed, and for it to spread to the point where Joseph Sr. felt a need to respond in a drastic way. That’s difficult to believe. If it was a rumor unconnected to the requirement to bring Alvin to the hill, then the part about dissection would seem to allude to the practice of grave robbers who sold corpses to medical schools. In such case, it makes no sense for the rumor to pertain to Alvin’s body, unless Joseph Sr. was claiming it occurred almost a year earlier. The false and vicious rumor therefore wasn’t designed to ruin18-year-old JS’s reputation or other members of the Smith family, but “persons” unrelated to the Smiths. This is probably how the newspaper announcement would have been read by those who hadn’t heard the rumor about JS need for Alvin at the hill, that is, if there was such a rumor. However, if Joseph Sr. needed a cover story, this is likely what he was implying, although it doesn’t pan out. While the timing of the “rumor” implies a connection to JS’s failed attempt to get the plates, it makes no sense that someone other the Smiths started the rumor. Who would think to attack the Smiths by accusing them of exhuming Alvin, when it could easily be disproven by examining the grave site? If the rumor was about the Smiths digging up Alvin’s body, Joseph Sr. would have known he didn’t do it and therefore would have had no need to exhume Alvin’s body other than to prove his innocence. Instead, he states “every person possessed of human sensibility must know, are peculiarly calculated to harrow up the mind of a parent and deeply wound the feelings of relations--therefore, for the purpose of ascertaining the truth of such reports ...” If he knows he didn’t do it, why would his feelings be “harrow[ed] up”? Why react so quickly to false rumors? If Joseph Sr. actually dug up Alvin’s body on 25 September 1824 to use in an attempt to get the plates (either in whole or in part) and Palmyrans heard rumor about it, when they read his notice in the paper they wouldn’t have assumed they were hearing the rumor that caused the exhumation. It seems likely that the announcement in the newspaper was to explain the reason for the exhumation and that the cover story was about an earlier exhumation that supposedly occurred shortly after Alvin’s death, which is still not credible. You don't have access to Lucy Smith's history? After the first visit, Joseph Sr. said he would have got the plates if he was in JS’s place. This shows his determination. You should already know this. I didn’t say there was patchy grass, but that could have been one of the possible signs of digging. There’s no way to make such a large excavation without leaving evidence. That’s why Joseph Sr. needed a cover story. The “distraught parent” doesn’t fit since Joseph Sr. supposedly knows he didn’t exhume Alvin’s body three days before. Joseph Sr. had supposedly been charged with digging Alvin’s body up for certain reason so three days later he digs Alvin’s body up? Supposedly, it’s widely known that Alvin is needed at the hill and so proceeds to dig up the body? Where are these witnesses? Why have witnesses if you don’t name them? This isn’t reassuring.
  10. I only have time to address your attempt to dismiss my interpretation of the disinterment of Alvin by Joseph Smith Sr. is suspicious and may have had something to do with JS’s September 1824 visit to the Manchester hill in connection with an attempt to get the plates. Joseph Sr.’s notice “To the Public” is as follows: Joseph Smith’s Sr.’s reasoning is suspicious. Who would “industriously put in circulation” such a rumor almost a year after Alvin had been dead? For what purpose? Makes no sense. The timing is suspicious. Joseph Jr. had only days before told his father about the requirement to take Alvin. Not much time for someone to “industriously put in circulation” such a rumor. Richard Anderson was quite right to connect the rumor to JS’s 1824 visit to the hill, although Anderson’s explanation makes no sense. Anderson explanation doesn’t work. He says the rumor was that the “Smiths had dug up—or would dig up—the corpse to fulfill the instructions.” And then they do it? But that’s not the rumor Joseph Sr. described. Anderson doesn’t explain why Alvin’s body was said to have been dissected. If someone put into circulation a false and vicious rumor to “injure the reputation of certain persons,” why would they have picked Alvin’s body? Why not someone who had died more recently? No medical school would want a body after three days, especially one which had undergone an autopsy after lying around a few days in the Smiths’ home. So no matter when Alvin was supposed to have been disinterred, Joseph Sr.’s reasoning isn’t credible. If it doesn’t make sense, it’s probably not true. Joseph Sr. was just told Joseph Jr. couldn’t get the plates because he didn’t bring Alvin. According to Lucy, her husband had said: AI would have taken them if I had been in your [email protected] Then you hear of his digging Alvin’s corpse up and giving a suspicious excuse. The requirement to bring Alvin also makes no sense, except as an excuse for not getting the plates. This is strange activity for an angel, but not a treasure guardian spirit. Anderson concedes this aspect of the story without exploring how Joseph Sr.’s belief in folk-magic and treasure guardian spirits would have predisposed him to accept such a wild and unsuspicious explanation. It doesn’t make sense because it’s probably not true. According to Anderson, Joseph Sr. dug up Alvin’s corpse to prove that he had not been dug up in the last three days. This is nonsense since it would have been readily apparent that the grave had been disturbed. The grave after nearly a year of changing weather conditions would have settled with grass probably starting to grow over it, though patchy. You simply can’t dig a sizable excavation without leaving obvious signs. An old dirt mound is different in color and consistency from a new dirt mound and is distinguishable from the surrounding ground. I can’t believe I have to explain this. If the rumors were about Joseph Sr. or his family digging up Alvin’s body, as Anderson speculated, it hardly makes sense for him to post a notice saying he dug the body up himself along with some unnamed neighbors. Why were these neighbors not named? If it makes no sense, it’s probably not true. It makes more sense if Joseph Sr. started the rumor himself as a pretext to dig up Alvin’s body. It’s unlikely that someone outside the Smith family would have known about the requirement to bring Alvin or knew the time Joseph Jr. was to visit the hill. Joseph Sr. visited Alvin’s grave on the morning of 25 September, which leaves only two full days for word to get out, for someone to “industriously” spread rumors, and for Joseph Sr. to organize an investigation with his neighbors. That seems to be a quick and extreme response for something he would take seriously enough to dig up Alvin’s body. Quinn only hints at the possibility of necromancy being involved and is more concerned to establish the requirement of Alvin’s presence at the hill. I certainly don’t present this as an absolute certainty, but it is far from being the wild salacious speculation you have called it.
  11. You are assuming that there was only one date on which to bring Alvin and that JS Sr. would have understood it that way. It is likely that 22 September 1827, the day JS got the plates was projected back to 1823 and 1824. I referred to Anderson because he also connected JS Sr.’s exhuming Alvin’s body with quelling rumors that the corpse had been used in an attempt to get the plates. Yet you probably don’t think he is a fool. Read: “So gossip about exhuming Alvin’s body was highest a year after Joseph’s 1823 visit to the hill, the time when, according to the angel’s instructions, Joseph was to bring Alvin. Apparently, word had circulated of Joseph’s instructions, and the false rumor was being spread that the Smiths had dug up—or would dig up—the corpse to fulfill the instructions. Father Smith was evidently pained that the family would be accused of such procedures, and so he took the action necessary to correct the rumor.” Anderson’s interpretation is different than mine and Quinn’s, but he connected the rumors to the angel’s request. Why? Because of the timing. But Anderson didn’t consider other aspects of the story. Of course the interpretation I and Quinn offered is different. We question JS Sr.’s reasoning as suspicious. Really? These attacks were not arguments but mere name calling: “grasping at the most absurd, lunatic, and salacious conspiracy” and "Vogel's own perverse imagination." This is where you show us how unfamiliar you are with the fundamental laws of nature and why your criticism is meaningless. Again, your comments here are completely silly and provides us with an explanation of why you have trouble following the reasoning of Quinn and myself. The idea that Alvin was buried in a shallow grave because the ground was frozen in November so he was dug up in the spring and reburied is absurd. Even if the ground was frozen in November (average 33-52 degrees Fahrenheit), it wouldn’t have been very deep. Recent digging in late September would leave all kinds of evidence. No way around that. The fact that you can’t grasp that helps explain your inability to appreciate a legitimate clue. Not if JS Sr. was the one who started the rumor as a pretext. Once he saw the ground was undisturbed, he would do anything not to dig Alvin up. My point was that the requirement to bring Alvin, then Lawrence, then Emma is that the story fits with treasure lore. It only seems that way since you can’t grasp the significance of some of the clues. There’s no history without connecting the dots. After giving my reasoning, I only state that it is “probable,” not a certainty. Another example of how you can’t see the implications of your own statements. You argued that JS’s family should know it he was telling the truth or not. That’s a false assumption since many frauds have fooled their own families. I do not believe there was a Smith family conspiracy. I made that clear in my interview with John Dehlin. My point about JS Sr.’s disinterment of Alvin possibly shows how much he believed JS.
  12. The analogy is false, unless you want to concede that JS's work as a treasure seer was delusional. JS used the same stone he pretended to find treasure with to translate the Book of Mormon.
  13. Your post to me contained no counter interpretation. I didn't see any other posts mentioning my name. The reason JS Sr. gave is not credible. Even Richard Anderson quoted on page 5 of this thread in large font connected the exhumation with the requirement to bring Alvin, not that someone else had dissected him. According to Anderson, he did it to quell rumors that Alvin's body or a part was taken to the hill. This is not too different than what Quinn and I have suggested. Yet, in your estimation we are fools. Your comment about the guardian not saying "bring Alvin's corpse" is totally silly. Cute, but stupid. Is it really necessary to say “grasping at the most absurd, lunatic, and salacious conspiracy” and "Vogel's own perverse imagination"? Where do you get "summarily concluding"? I questioned JS Sr.'s excuse for digging up the body, but so did Anderson. I also questioned it because it would have been apparent if the grave had been disturbed during the previous three days. However, the assumption that only 22 September was the magical day on which JS could get the plates is not historically sound. My use of "probable" pertains to the source of the "rumor"--that is, JS Sr. himself. How can you "summarily conclude" my analysis is wrong? That JS could convince his father about the treasure guardian's demand is no mystery since he believed in such things already. The assertion that no deceiver has ever fooled their own family is, of course, silly. After the treasure guardian spirit became an angel, the question that begs for explanation is: Why didn't the angel know Alvin was going to die? Of course, there would be no reason for an angel to require the presence of Alvin, Samuel Lawrence, or Emma. Such requirements were used by treasure guardians trying to trick they money diggers and deny them the treasure.
  14. I'm not affiliated with MS and have nothing to do with the essays. Read: "John Dehlin et al."
  • Create New...