Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Dan Vogel

Vogel's 'making Of A Prophet' Revisited

Recommended Posts

I ask: on what authority did Will make that statement, especially since I cited the church-produced microfilm as my source for assuming it was in the KEP? This microfilm dates to sometime before 1965, which is when the Tanners procured it. I have since consulted another microfilm of the collection produced by the church in 1971, but the Cowdery document in question was not on that one.

So, it is quite possible the document was moved shortly after the Tanners published the first microfilm. As some may recall, it was in the BYU Studies for summer 1971 that Hugh Nibley published his itinerary of the KEP, which doesn

Share this post


Link to post
I ask: on what authority did Will make that statement, especially since I cited the church-produced microfilm as my source for assuming it was in the KEP? This microfilm dates to sometime before 1965, which is when the Tanners procured it. I have since consulted another microfilm of the collection produced by the church in 1971, but the Cowdery document in question was not on that one.

So, it is quite possible the document was moved shortly after the Tanners published the first microfilm. As some may recall, it was in the BYU Studies for summer 1971 that Hugh Nibley published his itinerary of the KEP, which doesn

Share this post


Link to post

UD:

Since Will has promised us that he will track down the cataloguing history of the old document in question, I assume that he now has the promised info and will share it.

Will, did you ever get that information for us?

Not until the end of the week. I won't forget my promise to report.

Share this post


Link to post
If you have the DVD set, look in Disc 19, under Revelations Collection, for D&C 7, and you will see the Williams copy.

Dan, which DVD set is this and where can I get one?

Share this post


Link to post
Look at Dan.

Look at Dan seethe.

Look at Dan twist and turn.

Look at Dan squeeze

Share this post


Link to post
If you have the DVD set, look in Disc 19, under Revelations Collection, for D&C 7, and you will see the Williams copy.

Dan, which DVD set is this and where can I get one?

Big bucks, from BYU Studies --

Everybody I know uses pirated copies --

Uncle "they say a man is known by the company he keeps -- gulp!!" Dale

Share this post


Link to post
My feelings about more than one member of this forum have changed over the course of this discussion.

Will charity soon add her thoughts?

Stay tuned for more...

UD

Share this post


Link to post

Will: Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Dan did in fact make a mistake and the document in question never was filed with the KEP but was actually filed somewhere else in the church archives. What conclusion would you like us to draw from that (assumed) fact? Since everybody seems to agree that document does in fact exist in the church archives, and that Dan did not misrepresent the contents of the document, the error, if there was one, seems utterly trivial to me. Moreover, his explanation seems quite reasonable under the circumstances as they have been described. I just can't imagine anybody impugning the integrity or credibility of an author based on something like this. What am I missing here?

Share this post


Link to post
My feelings about more than one member of this forum have changed over the course of this discussion.

CK, I think the best course is to stay out of this one. DV and WS obviously detest one another's offerings.

Ain't nobody wins when nobody has a reason to be happy.

USU "You, of course, will decide what's best for you" 78

PS: Too bad DV didn't choose to participate earlier on in the other thread. Evil me smells a setup, but I don't trust his judgment. R

Share this post


Link to post

While we are being oh so particular I'll point out something that Alf O'Mega was mentioning on the original thread. You consistently called Dan's citation "Footnote 22" when actually it was endnote 22.

By such indication someone would be looking in the body of the book for the reference rather than the end.

Phaedrus

Share this post


Link to post
Will: Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Dan did in fact make a mistake and the document in question never was filed with the KEP but was actually filed somewhere else in the church archives. What conclusion would you like us to draw from that (assumed) fact? Since everybody seems to agree that document does in fact exist in the church archives, and that Dan did not misrepresent the contents of the document, the error, if there was one, seems utterly trivial to me. Moreover, his explanation seems quite reasonable under the circumstances as they have been described. I just can't imagine anybody impugning the integrity or credibility of an author based on something like this. What am I missing here?

Oh, I agree that the note in question is, indeed, trivial, my momentary pretensions to the contrary notwithstanding. The thread where I observed the error was ostensibly intended to identify any other errors in the book that readers may have identified. Its primary intention was ignored in the tempest that ensued.

Obviously, the discussion degenerated into a frenzied struggle between Vogel, his many supporters on this board, and yours truly, over whether or not the endnote in question does, in fact, represent a factual error.

Of course, Dan is keeping to his stance that the document was once found in the KEP. My initial inquiries of the CHO disputed that conclusion, but there is an effort afoot to verify the catalogue history of the document.

Frankly, I don't care that much either way. To me, it was simply instructive and somewhat revealing to observe the reaction of "Mr. Vogel" and his fans to the suggestion that an endnote in his book could have been in error!

Believe me there are far greater interpretive errors in the book than any other kind. But that is a topic for another thread.

For those who are interested in my response to Vogel's reiterated claims in the OP, see the other thread. I responded to them in full. Otherwise, I think I'll leave this thread to Dan and all his friends who are quickly assembling to reassure him that he was right all along.

Share this post


Link to post

Will: Thank you for clarifying matters for me.

Maybe I will add a personal comment. I am new here, but a long time lurker. This place has a lot of hard core critics, and a lot of hard core apologists. They usually talk past each other and I often wonder why they bother. Neither side will ever convince the other, because neither is really open to changing their minds on any issues that matter.

But there is a third group. They are the ones who are genuinely searching for answers to difficult questions. They could go either way. I am in this group. When people on either side make what I consider to be "over the top" accusations, I tend to question their credibility. I have seen you make some important, well informed and well argued points in the past on a variety of issues. This one, however, seemed way over the top to me. I tell you this, not to criticize you, but to suggest to you that if your goal is to really persuade people who are open to being persuaded, you may want to reconsider the way you have handled this. I dont mean to offend--I am only telling you how one guy whom you don't know and will never meet, reacted to your post. Take that for what it is worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Will: Thank you for clarifying matters for me.

Maybe I will add a personal comment. I am new here, but a long time lurker. This place has a lot of hard core critics, and a lot of hard core apologists. They usually talk past each other and I often wonder why they bother. Neither side will ever convince the other, because neither is really open to changing their minds on any issues that matter.

But there is a third group. They are the ones who are genuinely searching for answers to difficult questions. They could go either way. I am in this group. When people on either side make what I consider to be "over the top" accusations, I tend to question their credibility. I have seen you make some important, well informed and well argued points in the past on a variety of issues. This one, however, seemed way over the top to me. I tell you this, not to criticize you, but to suggest to you that if your goal is to really persuade people who are open to being persuaded, you may want to reconsider the way you have handled this. I dont mean to offend--I am only telling you how one guy whom you don't know and will never meet, reacted to your post. Take that for what it is worth.

Oh well. I'm human. And if I stooped to the opportunity to needle Vogel for a minor factual error in his shockingly ahistorical hit piece on Joseph Smith, then I confess to the lapse in judgment, if that's what it is to be called.

In my estimation, Vogel is to be faulted equally for being unable to acknowledge a minor factual error in his shockingly ahistorical hit piece on Joseph Smith, and to instead attempt to defend it with mind-numbing sophistries.

In the final analysis, which transgression do you consider worse?

I'll leave that to your judgment as I move on to the next topic of discussion.

Share this post


Link to post

Will,

For those who are interested in my response to Vogel's reiterated claims in the OP, see the other thread. I responded to them in full. Otherwise, I think I'll leave this thread to Dan and all his friends who are quickly assembling to reassure him that he was right all along.

No, you didn't respond to my questions in full; hence this thread. Are you going to respond to my main question at least? On what authority did not claim that the Church Historian's Office would tell us that the Cowdery document was never in the KEP collection?

I'm not too pround to admit mistakes, but I have a right to respond to people who try to malign my integrity. I also have a right to know on what basis your criticisms are being made.

Share this post


Link to post
If you have the DVD set, look in Disc 19, under Revelations Collection, for D&C 7, and you will see the Williams copy.

Dan, which DVD set is this and where can I get one?

Big bucks, from BYU Studies --

Everybody I know uses pirated copies --

Uncle "they say a man is known by the company he keeps -- gulp!!" Dale

ACK!!!! A thousand dollars!!!!!

(Customers who bought this item also bought... Large Round CTR Necklace $5.99 , Nike Navy Brigham Young 13 Basketball Jersey $50.00 )

Share this post


Link to post

USU,

PS: Too bad DV didn't choose to participate earlier on in the other thread. Evil me smells a setup, but I don't trust his judgment. R

Huh! I set Will up? The thread was a fast moving one, and I responded as soon as I learned about it. I'm not responsible for what Will chose to write and the way he construed the facts.

Share this post


Link to post

In the other thread I began a line of questioning with Will which he ignored until his final post, after which the thread was gaveled closed. For the entertainment of the underscheduled, here is a recap of that line:

In the opening post of this thread, William Schryver writes:
On page 114 of Dan Vogel

Share this post


Link to post

Will,

In my estimation, Vogel is to be faulted equally for being unable to acknowledge a minor factual error in his shockingly ahistorical hit piece on Joseph Smith, and to instead attempt to defend it with mind-numbing sophistries.

There you go again. Making unfounded accusations in order to avoid responsibility for your own words.

For the record, I did not dispute the fact that the Cowdery document may no longer be a part of the KEP collection. I told you honestly why I thought it was, and allowed the probability that you might be right. It's something I'll check on independently just to make sure.

EDIT:

I'll leave that to your judgment as I move on to the next topic of discussion.

Before you leave, can you please answer my questions? They are of scholarly and factual interest to me.

Share this post


Link to post
If you have the DVD set, look in Disc 19, under Revelations Collection, for D&C 7, and you will see the Williams copy.

Dan, which DVD set is this and where can I get one?

Big bucks, from BYU Studies --

Everybody I know uses pirated copies --

Uncle "they say a man is known by the company he keeps -- gulp!!" Dale

FAIR has a legitimate set of these DVDs.

If a look-up is needed, request it here and we'll see if we can get it.

Argos

Share this post


Link to post

When reading Will's original post, it was my impression that he was implying that such a document never existed, or was implying some dark motive for Dan to have intentionally noted the wrong location.

If he was familiar with the document, and was merely pointing out Dan's error in citing it's location, he should have been more clear. Something along the lines of "hey Dan, your endnote 22 misidentifies the location of the document. My friend at the Church Archives found it in another collection. Maybe this could be corrected in the next printing of the book. Just an FYI."

That would seem to convey all that was needed, and would have avoided any misunderstanding. It could even have been a private exchange. But maybe that's just me.

Share this post


Link to post

I was only going to read and not participate, but Uncle Dale asked where I was.

Some random responses: So why would some people get a completely different view of what the initial post was about? There is opposition in all things. Unlike Cinepro, I think I got the message as originally proposed. "Here is an error. Have any of you found any other errors?" Pretty straight forward.

My question never was about whether or not the document existed, or where it was, but on the question of sloppy scholarship. And not on typo's, either. Despite repeated denials of such by Vogel and company, my concerns were not satisfied.

Now, this topic seems to me to be on the order of a snit by the topic originator. I am not going to participate further. Don't even ask, Uncle Dale.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with Troubled and Cinepro here.

It seems that this has been pages of overblown accusations and counter-accusations. Can't we all just get along people? Why argue over such a trifle? It doesn't reflect well on any of us.

Here's a quote from Pres. Hinckley's talk last April "The Need for Greater Kindness."

"Why do any of us have to be so mean and unkind to others? Why can't all of us reach out in friendship to everyone about us? Why is there so much bitterness and animosity? It is not a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ."

I think this applies to apologetics and this site as much or more than any other venue.

Share this post


Link to post
Some random responses: So why would some people get a completely different view of what the initial post was about? There is opposition in all things. Unlike Cinepro, I think I got the message as originally proposed. "Here is an error. Have any of you found any other errors?" Pretty straight forward.

That is how I read Will's original posting -- so I replied with the example of the date

and place of Katherine Smith Salisbury's early 1830s marriage.

All of which sank out of sight, like a stone into the ocean -- but that's OK.

I've also found a few other typos and small mistakes in Dan's books.

Uncle "and just as soon as I get my glass house constructed, I'll start throwing stones" Dale

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...