Vogel's The Making Of A Prophet

[Jan]

Hi Charity..

That is only a valid opinion, if the meticulously documented doesn't contain a bogus reference. If there is a citation that is made up, then the whole "well researched and meticulously documented" argument falls apart.

I can guarantee that if there is a mistake in the footnoes it was not intentional or "made up."

Then we can have that charitable response to others that have mistakes in footnoes, can't we?

[Calm]

truth dancer, if you know Dan why don't you tell him what is going on with this topic.

I saw him browsing just a minute ago.

He will probably need some time to check his notes and sources to doublecheck what happened.

[Dan Vogel]

Will,

The document to which I refer is catalogued in the LDS Archives as Ms d 3408 fd 4.

I assumed that the separate sheet of paper was kept with the KEP, because it was included on the microfilm used by the Tanners in their reproduction. It is possible that the document was moved from the Kirtland Egyptian Papers Collection since it really doesn

[Uncle Dale]

Will, perhaps in the future you might consider giving me the benefit of the doubt.

So said the Christians to the Romans, as they were being thown to the lions.

You're a good scholar, Dan, but your conclusions keep hitting the "beehive" like

a heavy old stick.

The bees will swarm... that's what bees do.

UD

[truth dancer]

Hi Jan,

Then we can have that charitable response to others that have mistakes in footnoes, can't we?

I have never criticized an author for honest mistakes in footnotes.

~dancer~

[charity]

Mr. Vogel, then is this what you are saying? You used as a source something that the Tanners had published, and you took their word for it, that it was what it said it was?

[cinepro]

Dan Vogel said:

The document to which I refer is catalogued in the LDS Archives as Ms d 3408 fd 4....

Oh snap. W!11 g0t 0wn3d!!

Edit: And lest we forget, even LDS scholars can make mistakes.

[Dan Vogel]

Charity,

Mr. Vogel, then is this what you are saying? You used as a source something that the Tanners had published, and you took their word for it, that it was what it said it was?

No, that's not what I said. My assumption that the document was included with the KEP was perhaps influenced by its inclusion on the same microfilm as the KEP, which microfilm the Tanners procured and published. I have also long been aware of this document through other researchers and various publications.

[Dan Vogel]

Will,

According to my research, there is no such document among the

[juliann]

Then we can have that charitable response to others that have mistakes in footnoes, can't we?

I have never criticized an author for honest mistakes in footnotes.

Ah, so when you and your friends crucify LDS authors for making a mistake it is because it is a dishonest mistake. Gotcha.

[juliann]

That is the whole point of this thread. William Schryver has noted that one of the footnotes seems to refer to material that does not exist. Dan Vogel has not come on the board to defend this citation. If it stands, then his whole scholarship is called into serious question.

No one has to come here to defend anything. If there is a scholar (or a human being) who has not made a mistake I'd like to meet him/her.

[Daniel Peterson]

From what I've seen, people who actually specialize in some of the areas that Dan explores have been quite critical of his scholarship.  And they have the expertise to offer such opinions.

Like winning the Best Biography Award from the Mormon History Association and the Best Book Award from the John Whitmer Historical Association?

Last I checked they represent the two leading scholarly organizations for Mormon/Restoration Historians. They seem to offer a different opinion of his scholarship.

I don't mean to downplay the significance of Dan Vogel's winning those two awards. Doing so was certainly a considerable honor to him.

But you shouldn't begin to assume that everybody in MHA was happy about the award, or agreed with it. (I'm a member of MHA, for one, and wasn't and didn't. But there are far more significant MHA members than I -- including past presidents -- who would say the same thing, and were perplexed by the prize. Or so several of them have told me.) And as to the JWHA (in which I've also participated and in which I hold membership), well . . . There is ideology in all things.

Prize decisions at MHA, at least, are made by very small committees. The membership is not polled. Not even the scholarly membership is polled.

I know that I'm walking a very fine line here, and I know that I'll be represented, in certain circles, as attacking Dan Vogel and/or the MHA, and/or as holding to a double standard, and/or as favoring scholarship only when it favors my position, or whatever. I actually like Dan. And I respect his knowledge of the primary source documents. But, as I've told him directly, I think his book is seriously, seriously flawed. (Along with the previously published FARMS Review piece on the book by the brothers Hedges, there is a critique of it by Larry Morris in the new issue of the Review, as well as a very relevant article by Mark Ashurst-MdGee. These lay out a few of the reservations that I myself have.) And I want to warn against inflating the importance of an award from a committee of the MHA. Such an award does not, by any means, necessarily represent an endorsement by the Mormon historical community as a whole. In any given year, it might, or it might not. In this particular case, I would be very cautious in assuming that it represents anything like a consensus of the MHA as a whole.

[The Dude]

Then we can have that charitable response to others that have mistakes in footnoes, can't we?

I have never criticized an author for honest mistakes in footnotes.

Ah, so when you and your friends crucify LDS authors for making a mistake it is because it is a dishonest mistake. Gotcha.

Holy snarky, Batman! We can only assume Juliann has a specific case in mind....

[solomarineris]

Access to a document locked in an impregnable vault,

Where is this vault? is it in the records Quarry in the Canyon? Do you think Holy Grail is there also?

[charity]

juliann, if there is a source or citation that someone has used which is questionable, where do they go to defend, or explain it?

[gramps]

Will/Provis, I have to wonder why you made this OP?

I must say that when I first read your OP, the thought that came to my mind was "poisoning the well."

After reading the Pundits thread and your responses back and forth with Dan Vogel, (and at least, to my mind he is getting the better of you) I wondered if you weren't just getting a tad bit frustrated.

Might your frustration have led to your attack on Dan Vogel's scholarship in an unrelated area (well, not totally unrelated)?

Of course, only you know that for sure. But, after reading Dan Vogel's response to your OP, one must wonder why a simple PM or other fair(?)er method to clear up your questions would not have sufficed.

What's up with that? If that was your strategy (and only you know for sure), it just may have backfired on you. Did you not think about that before you made your OP?

[Dan Vogel]

Daniel P.,

I don't mean to downplay the significance of Dan Vogel's winning those two awards.

Yes, you do!

Doing so was certainly a considerable honor to him.

Yes, but I don

[Confidential Informant]

Not sure whether anyone cares or not, but does the fact of one citation mistake really create the need to question the full range of the scholarship involved? I really don't think it does. I certainly hope not because I know that in some of my legal writings I've cited cases incorrectly and even on one occassion completely misunderstood the context of what I was quoting. Does that mean that the overall arc of my arguments was undermined? Perhaps to some degree but I don't think it was that devastating.

I'm opting to cut Vogel a break on this one unless someone can show my why I shouldn't.

C.I.

P.S. I can think of one exception to this rule: In his book Blood of the Prophets, Bagley made one of the most egregious errors of citation I've ever seen when stated that a blurb from a diary indicated that the someone was going to "raise allies" when in fact it said they were going to "raise grain."

For the life of me I cannot fathom how an error such as that could be anything but intentional. But that's just me.

ci

[charity]

C.I. asked, "...does the fact of one citation mistake really create the need to question the full range of the scholarship involved?"

I think it depends on what type of citation mistake it is. If there is a typo, page III instead of page II, then that is an understandable type of error, a tiny mistake, on the level of a small misdemeanor. Even if the whole citation was misplaced, "Psalms 6:17" when it was reallly "Proverbs 6:17." A "tut tut" is in order.

If a person merely copies another's quote and source, and does not check it for himself and it is in error, that is a little different. And "Gee, I thought the Tanners had it right, so I used what they had and said it came from the original, when I only saw it in something the Tanners produced" is pretty sloppy. And that deserves a real look at what that person's standards of research are. The material and citation from such a source should have included, "church archives, as per Tanner. . ."

If he didn't see it in the archives, he had no business saying it came from the archives. But of course, putting that information came from something the Tanners had published and said it came from the archives would not be exactly confidence inspiring.

So yes, I think this type of error as admitted to by Vogel should call in question the full range of his scholarship.

[Confidential Informant]

So yes, I think this type of error as admitted to by Vogel should call in question the full range of his scholarship.

And my response to you is the same it was to Alf Omega: You have no expertise whatsoever to decide whether or not Vogel's scholarship should be called into question. In fact, you appear more like the Taco Bell chihuahua nipping at his heels.

CI

[Uncle Dale]

So yes, I think this type of error as admitted to by Vogel should call in question the full range of his scholarship.

In this thread I earlier offered to put you or one of the other trustworthy Mormons

in direct contact with the head of the LDS Archives.

Dan has now provided the call number for this second Nephite characters transcript.

Don't you think that the matterr would best be cleared up by you (or some other LDS)

contacting the LDS Archives and requesting that a scan of the document be e-mailed

to you, for posting here?

I'm not a member of your church, but you or some other member, who is saying so

much in this thread, can probably resolve this little matter rather quickly.

Is this document being suppressed? Is that why all of the negative focus here is on

Dan Vogel and "calling into question the full range of his scholarship," instead of our

calling into question the willingness of the LDS church to prove ITS scholarship?

UD

[truth dancer]

Hi Charity...

I think it depends on what type of citation mistake it is. If there is a typo, page III instead of page II, then that is an understandable type of error, a tiny mistake, on the level of a small misdemeanor. Even if the whole citation was misplaced, "Psalms 6:17" when it was reallly "Proverbs 6:17." A "tut tut" is in order.

Yep. We all make honest mistakes. Part of life.

If a person merely copies another's quote and source, and does not check it for himself and it is in error,

To what error do you refer?

that is a little different. And "Gee, I thought the Tanners had it right, so I used what they had and said it came from the original, when I only saw it in something the Tanners produced" is pretty sloppy. And that deserves a real look at what that person's standards of research are. The material and citation from such a source should have included, "church archives, as per Tanner. . ."

Your statement does not even remotely reflect Dan's response.

If he didn't see it in the archives, he had no business saying it came from the archives.

Are you disputing the fact that the document is in the archives?

But of course, putting that information came from something the Tanners had published and said it came from the archives would not be exactly confidence inspiring.

Again, you sound like you are suggesting the archives do not have the document.

So yes, I think this type of error as admitted to by Vogel should call in question the full range of his scholarship.

To what "error as admitted to by Vogel" do you refer?

I say take Dale up on his offer!

~dancer~

[The Dude]

So yes, I think this type of error as admitted to by Vogel should call in question the full range of his scholarship.

And my response to you is the same it was to Alf Omega: You have no expertise whatsoever to decide whether or not Vogel's scholarship should be called into question.

I think you're putting too much weight on the shoulders of experts. Regular people can be critical thinkers, too. However, in this instance, because Charity shows that she doesn't even understand Vogel's explanation, any side debate we might have about this continuum would be moot.

In fact, you appear more like the Taco Bell chihuahua nipping at his heels. 

I second the motion!

[Uncle Dale]

I say take Dale up on his offer! 

Charity's remarks cast a shadow of suspicion over Vogel's five volumes of early Mormon

documents, as well as upon his recent JS biography's "scholarship."

The implicit message to Mormons -- "Do not use these books."

The Church could have avoided 9/10th of the problem by simply issuing its own version

of Vogel's five volumes of Mormon documents. Then we would not have to worry over

whether Dan is making up sources and telling lies about the documents' content.

But, for some unknown reason, the LDS Church and/or its best scholars have avoided

doing the necessary groundwork, that would have made Dan's five volumes unneeded.

As early as 1976, H. Michael Marquardt and I began work compiling the texts of various

"early Mormon documents;" simply because we could not obtain them from the LDS

Church librarians and scholars ourselves. Michael was for many years "banned" from

the Library and Archives in Salt Lake City, but I was a registered researcher there and

in the RLDS Library/Archives in Independence. From the previous groundwork laid

down by RLDS Elder James Wardle, and from my access to rare and obscure documents

in Missouri, Mike and I began compiling the first "early Mormon documents" collection.

While I was overseas on my extended work with and for the RLDS, Mike continued

that compilation and we were both happy to see Dan take up the ball and run with

it in a most commendable sort of way.

But some posters to this thread tell us we should not be looking at Dan's books. Such

an approach takes us back to 1976 all over again.

Would it not be best for the LDS Church to extend its multiple-disk DVD series on

the "Joseph Smith Papers" to include actual scans of all of the source materials,

the transcripts of which Dan has already provided us with in his 5 EMD books?

Perhaps the LDS Church does not have sufficient funds to carry out such a large

scanning project? Or, perhaps it does not have enough service missionaries?

Or, perhaps we should simply read charity's words and leave the matter at that.

?????

Uncle Dale

[Hawkmoon]

I notice here that Will refers to Dan as Mr Vogal and talks about him in the 3rd person both here and in the thread on the KEP. Seems a tad rude. The others refer to each other as "Dan" "Wil" etc.

This gets funnier and funnier... the "critics" routinly disparage mormonism, mormons and apologists... yet when they even think it's happening to one of theirs they become very sensitive. Quite laughable really.