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.
In spite of the world's arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God's prophets.
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.
But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. 2 Timothy 2:2
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.
"Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God." Gamaliel - Acts 5:38-39
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
"That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another." -- Joseph Smith
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.
DV: I am a suspicious sort whose judgment in such matters (where money isn't at stake) is not to be trusted, as I tried to make quite clear.
Ignore the evil me.
He can only be trusted when money's on the line.
USU "Wanna bet?" 78
In the immortal words of? Socrates...I DRANK WHAT???!!!
This is positively my final post on this long-since wearisome topic.
Vogel:
Quote
On what authority did not (sic) claim that the Church Historian's Office would tell us that the Cowdery document was never in the KEP collection?
A contact in the CHO who desires to remain anonymous.
Quote
I'm not too pround to admit mistakes, but I have a right to respond to people who try to malign my integrity.
Get over it, Dan. No one ?¢â?¬??maligned your integrity.?¢â?¬? If you think that I did, then break out the quote where I did it. The only bad reflection on you is consequent to your overreaction to this entire thing.
Quote
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.
Fair enough. You wanna kiss and make up now?
Ok, how about a simple handshake followed by a period of rest, recuperation, and rearmament?
Quote
It's something I'll check on independently just to make sure.
Me, too. I should know sometime Friday. If I can find someone who says that the document at one time was catalogued among the KEP, then you will be vindicated. You will have been misinformed about where it is now, and I will have been misinformed about where it used to be. It?¢â?¬â?¢ll be sixes.
Although I still can?¢â?¬â?¢t imagine why you thought this issue worth the time and effort you have committed to it. Oh yeah, it was your perception that your ?¢â?¬??integrity?¢â?¬? had been maligned. That?¢â?¬â?¢s a pretty hyper-sensitive reaction, don?¢â?¬â?¢t you think? Or maybe my skin in just thicker from silently absorbing cheap shots from you for the past few months?
Quote
Before you leave, can you please answer my questions? They are of scholarly and factual interest to me.
I?¢â?¬â?¢ve done my best. Satisfied now? Ready to move on to something else? Like the historical evidence regarding the translation of the Book of Abraham? Or maybe we could spar about the alleged differences in accounts of the First Vision?
Both topics interest me.
This one no longer does.
Cinepro:
Quote
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.
Your mistake. Not mine. Do you also have recurrent bouts of paranoia when you are convinced that the Danites are following you into the local brew pub?
Quote
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."
Oh well. The damage is done now, ain?¢â?¬â?¢t it? No sense crying over spilled milk, as they say.
Charity:
Quote
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.
Uncle Dale:
Quote
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 ?¢â?¬?¦
Hark! What do we hear? Two lonely voices in the wilderness. Voices of reason, I?¢â?¬â?¢d say.
At any rate, if Dan is agreeable, we'll move on. I'm quite confident we have something better to fight about.
So there you have it. I'd much rather have my response in the original thread, because here it sounds like the proverbial perfect comeback that only occurs to you the next morning in the shower. But reading the other thread without this punch line leaves me sounding somewhat more daft than I actually am.
I hope you realize the difference between questioning someone's accuracy in a biography and calling into question someone's accuracy in a thread on a MB. All your haranguing did was make you look like a poor man's Will.
As to the actual thread itself... Will had a point that DV answered rather poorly IMO, and due to their obvious dislike for one another never was resolved. However, it seems to me that the thread was rather silly in the end since it never dealt with the main purpose of the thread which to see if any other errors had been found in his book.
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."
Good advice for all those who want to engage in ad hominal attacks and dig a pit for his neighbor.
I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not. --Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
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.
Except that even when Will explained otherwise (several times) in later posts you, and others, kept up the same charge... so his clarification resolved what?
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 guess I did not see any mind numbing sophistries. His explanation seemed pretty straightforward and believable to me. Certainly no reason to insinuate a lack of integrity or even sloppy scholarship. Oh well, I think I will try to dive into the Pundits debates. There does seem to be some potential for meaningful exchanges of ideas there.
I would be interested in reading Dan's book and some good reviews of it. Can anybody tell me how to find them?
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."
Dan said...
Quote
Good advice for all those who want to engage in ad hominal attacks and dig a pit for his neighbor.
I'd say it's good advice for everyone.
Please don't take my attempt at reconciliation and create an attack out of it. Gracias.
"Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God." Gamaliel - Acts 5:38-39
This is positively my final post on this long-since wearisome topic.
I?¢â?¬â?¢m not surprised.
My main question was:
Quote
On what authority did not (sic) claim that the Church Historian's Office would tell us that the Cowdery document was never in the KEP collection?
To which you have finally responded:
Quote
A contact in the CHO who desires to remain anonymous.
Sorry, I learned from Mark Hofmann not to accept anonymous sources. For all I know it could be the guy who watches the door. Or, your source said something like ?¢â?¬??as far as I know...?¢â?¬? and it turns out that they weren?¢â?¬â?¢t there in the 1960s. Whoever it is must explain why the document was on the 1960s microfilm. I talked with Brent a little while ago, and he was under the same impression.
Then, to my statement
Quote
It's something I'll check on independently just to make sure.
You said:
Quote
Me, too. I should know sometime Friday. If I can find someone who says that the document at one time was catalogued among the KEP, then you will be vindicated. You will have been misinformed about where it is now, and I will have been misinformed about where it used to be. It?¢â?¬â?¢?¢â?¬â?¢ll be sixes.
This tells me that you are not so sure about your anonymous source.
I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not. --Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
The particular book in question is Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet
Reviews at Signature Books
No, Dan, That?¢â?¬â?¢?¢â?¬â?¢s Still Not History - FARMS
Phaedrus
See also my response:
?¢â?¬??Seeing Through the Hedges Response to Andrew H. Hedges and Dawson W. Hedges.?¢â?¬?
When I read Will's original "a ha!" post I felt he was making a mountain out of molehill. If Will's purpose was only to bring a possible mistake to Dan's attention, why not just send him a private message? Seems to me he was trying to embarrass him publicly, which is not considerate or helpful.
While I appreciate the efforts of apologists to analyze the works of critics, I think they need to be accurate and responsible in their refutations.
If it turns out Will was wrong in his assertions, the mature thing to do would be to apologize.
"The heart of the righteous studieth to answer: but the mouth of the wicked poureth out evil things." Proverbs 15:28
"God is not accountable to us for the senseless harm we cause one another, We are accountable to Him!" Etty Hillesum, Holocaust Survivor
When I read Will's original "a ha!" post I felt he was making a mountain out of molehill. If Will's purpose was only to bring a possible mistake to Dan's attention, why not just send him a private message? Seems to me he was trying to embarrass him publicly, which is not considerate or helpful.
While I appreciate the efforts of apologists to analyze the works of critics, I think they need to be accurate and responsible in their refutations.
If it turns out Will was wrong in his assertions, the mature thing to do would be to apologize.
As good a reason as any to wait upon events; i.e., WS' running down the vagaries of cataloguing and reporting back his findings.
USU "Patience in the face of bureaucracy may not be rewarded, but at least it won't be arrested" 78
In the immortal words of? Socrates...I DRANK WHAT???!!!
If it turns out Will was wrong in his assertions, the mature thing to do would be to apologize.
USU,
Quote
As good a reason as any to wait upon events; i.e., WS' running down the vagaries of cataloguing and reporting back his findings.
As far as I?¢â?¬â?¢m concerned, the matter does not hinge on the result of Will?¢â?¬â?¢s findings. I told him the basis on which I believed the document was in the KEP collection. Even if I was mistaken, I had good reason and wrote on good faith. Will has implied that it was never in the collection and that I made up this excuse to save my reputation. He originally implied that no such document existed and that I fabricated the source -- It would be a great historical find, he said. These facts will not change with a trip to the archives.
I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not. --Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
0
This topic is locked
