Vogel's The Making Of A Prophet

[Hawkmoon]

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.

Did you really just type this? You gramps? Come on now... that is more than a bit ironic, isn't it?

As for Dan getting the better of Will I beg to differ. IMO, Dan has been quite dismissive and has not engaged the points very well at all. To each his own I suppose.

[Daniel Peterson]

Daniel P.,

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

Yes, you do!

Well, in a sense, yes. Of course. Obviously.

I'm skeptical, to a greater or lesser degree, of most prizes. I also don't find Oscars and Nobel Prizes convincing in and of themselves. Gordon Tullock probably ought to win the Nobel Prize for economics, but won't -- probably because he's offended just about every human he's ever encountered. Fred Hoyle absolutely ought to have won the Nobel Prize for physics, as Simon Singh's recent book Big Bang makes abundantly clear, and it's one of the great injustices in the recent history of science that he didn't. Graham Greene and Jorge Luis Borges should have won the Nobel Prize for literature, but, instead, the prize went to such giants as Dario Fo and Harry Martinson. Mikhail Sholokhov may (perhaps) even have plagiarized his Nobel-winning work Quiet Flows the Don from a dead army officer. Patrick White was (to put it very mildly) no Tolstoy, yet White won the Nobel for literature while Tolstoy was repeatedly passed over and never did. Titanic is not a great film. But Oscars and the Nobel Prize remain significant awards.

I was trying to put your winning of the MHA and JWHA awards in a more modest perspective. Phaedrus UT seemed to me to be coming perilously close to asserting that your methodology and conclusions had been validated by those awards, as if the entire Mormon historical community had gathered and, in conference assembled, endorsed your approach and your views. I dispute this on, among other things, the basis of the same kind of reasoning that would lead me to insist that their Oscars don't prove Oliver! and Gigi better films than Citizen Kane (nor even, for that matter, particularly good).

In another sense, though, no. I was trying to guard against misunderstanding. I'm trying not to come across as badmouthing you or the MHA. Next time, though, I'll just ask you to explain to me and to others what I mean. It'll save everybody time. Or perhaps I'll simply refer anybody curious about my views to the oddly-named "Recovery" board. Several there claim to understand my position far better than I do. And, since I'm apparently transcendently stupid, they're probably right.

There is ideology in all things.

Ideology on both sides of the issue.

As I said, there is ideology in all things. (Even, as I've noted several times in print, in physics and in symbolic logic. That ideology exists in historiography, of all things, is trivial beyond saying.)

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

[Uncle Dale]

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.

Did you really just type this? You gramps? Come on now... that is more than a bit ironic, isn't it?

As for Dan getting the better of Will I beg to differ. IMO, Dan has been quite dismissive and has not engaged the points very well at all. To each his own I suppose.

Well then -- what would be a better example of "poisoning the well?"

I could dig into Dr. Hugh Nibley's massive amount of published scholarship and make

an attempt to show that he was often sloppy in his citations -- that some of his sources

are not what he said they were, etc. In fact, LDS scholars of a higher standing than

myself have already done a little of this sort of thing.

But, out of respect for Dr. Nibley, I would not start a thread calling into question the

sum total of his good writings, all because of some sloppy documentation in a small

portion of that published material. That is not good form, and we all know it.

But here, because Dan has not produced an image or a transcript of the Nephite

characters he (and others) published reference to, we are given the implicit message

that "all of his scholarship" is questionable, or faulty -- or perhaps just one more

attempt by the adversary to tear down and destroy the latter day work.

How would you recommend that this matter be handled, from here on out?

Dale R. Broadhurst

web-host, SolomonSpalding.com

[Hawkmoon]

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.

Did you really just type this? You gramps? Come on now... that is more than a bit ironic, isn't it?

As for Dan getting the better of Will I beg to differ. IMO, Dan has been quite dismissive and has not engaged the points very well at all. To each his own I suppose.

Well then -- what would be a better example of "poisoning the well?"

I could dig into Dr. Hugh Nibley's massive amount of published scholarship and make

an attempt to show that he was often sloppy in his citations -- that some of his sources

are not what he said they were, etc. In fact, LDS scholars of a higher standing than

myself have already done a little of this sort of thing.

But, out of respect for Dr. Nibley, I would not start a thread calling into question the

sum total of his good writings, all because of some sloppy documentation in a small

portion of that published material. That is not good form, and we all know it.

But here, because Dan has not produced an image or a transcript of the Nephite

characters he (and others) published reference to, we are given the implicit message

that "all of his scholarship" is questionable, or faulty -- or perhaps just one more

attempt by the adversary to tear down and destroy the latter day work.

How would you recommend that this matter be handled, from here on out?

Dale R. Broadhurst

web-host, SolomonSpalding.com

Obviously, you did not comprehend my post... the irony lies in the fact that gramps is the one complaining about someone "poisoning the well" not in whether that in fact happened.

Furthermore, the fact is that several threads were started calling into question Nibley's ability as a scholar and his integrity-- yet strangely, that was okay. Now, OTHOH it is shocking! Shocking I say! It is a bit much to swallow; though I would say that it could be handled better on both sides of the fence the fact is it is not... so, why the salty tears now?

[The Dude]

Or, under really different circumstances, enjoying a few beers at priesthood meeting.

What? Did they make an announcement in conference about this?

edit: I'm still LDS, on the books. I have faith the Church can change for the better.

[Uncle Dale]

Furthermore, the fact is that several threads were started calling into question Nibley's ability as a scholar and his integrity-- yet strangly, that was okay.

Now, it is shocking. Shocking I say! It is a bit much to swallow though I would say that it could be handled better on both sides of the fence the fact is it is not... so, why they salty tears now?

Whose "salty tears?"

Certainly not mine. I am no great defender of Dan Vogel. I often criticize his various

historical conclusions, and sometimes in harsh langauge -- as a search of these very

MB threads will soon show.

Nor have I ever knowing offered any disrespect to Dr. Nibley -- as yet another search

of the threads will show.

Personalities aside, we here have an opportunity to get at the truth. Or, at least get

closer to the truth in the matter of very early evidence for the Nephite characters.

Do not expect me to give explanations for other anti-Mormons' "salty tears." I do not

know these people, just as I have no idea who "Hawkmoon" may be.

Dan Vogel posts under his own name -- so at least we know who he is. When next he

cries tears here, we can sympathize or condemn, as suits us. But as for all the rest

of this "fluff," it says nothing good about the posters here, be they pro or con.

Dale R. Broadhurst

web-host, SidneyRigdon.com

[Uncle Dale]

Or, under really different circumstances, enjoying a few beers at priesthood meeting.

What? Did they make an announcement in conference about this?

edit: I'm still LDS, on the books. I have faith the Church can change for the better.

Surely you are not suggesting that we return to allowing mild barley drinks of our

own brewing? Polygamy Porter needs no competition, Dude!

UD

[charity]

truth dancer asked what error I thought Dan Vogel admitted. This is it:

Dan Vogel: "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."

This is at best a second hand accout. His source quote is "22. Original in LDS Church Archives, catalogued among Joseph Smith

[Uncle Dale]

truth dancer asked what error I thought Dan Vogel admitted.  This is it: 

Dan Vogel:  "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."

This is at best a second hand accout. His source quote is "22. Original in LDS Church Archives, catalogued among Joseph Smith

[charity]

What to do about Vogel's books? Just look at them with a skeptical eye if he uses what other people tell him, and then says it came from an original source.

edited to add: Do we know there is a(n) "Ms d 3408 fd 4?" I would like to hear someone who has access tell me that it is an acutal document.

[The Dude]

truth dancer, if you know Dan why don't you tell him what is going on with this topic. I really would like to hear what he has to say about it.

I agree mistakes can happen. Wrong page number. Etc. But to cite a source which seems as though it doesn't exist? That isn't a "wrong page number." That is why he really should make his appearance and explain.

Well all that's left now is for Will Schryver to make his appearance and explain, or, whatever....

[Uncle Dale]

I would like to hear someone who has access tell me that it is an

acutal document.

Perhaps Dr. Peterson has this publication, and that document's citation, on his shelf --

???

UD

[truth dancer]

Hi Charity...

Dan wrote....

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

Do you dispute this? If so, why not take Dale up on his offer?

I

[charity]

I refer you to the opening post, where William Schryer said he was not aware of that document, and it wasn't in the place where Dan said it was. I didn't accuse Dan of making it up. I said his source was suspicious. And he certainly was not up front about where he got his information in his citation.

I am waiting to hear from someone who has the access and has checked out the document number.

[QEJS]

truth dancer, if you know Dan why don't you tell him what is going on with this topic.  I really would like to hear what he has to say about it.

I agree mistakes can happen.  Wrong page number. Etc.  But to cite a source which seems as though it doesn't exist?  That isn't a "wrong page number."  That is why he really should make his appearance and explain.

Well all that's left now is for Will Schryver to make his appearance and explain, or, whatever....

Yes, I'm also waiting for this ...

Let's hope it isn't too far off.

[Dan Vogel]

Charity,

I cleared this up for you in a previous post. You asked on 29 Sept.:

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?

I responded that same day:

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.

Yet, today you quote my first statement without acknowledgment of my correcting you:

Dan Vogel: "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."

So, what

[charity]

I read your response. "Being aware" of a document from other people and other publications seems hardly more to me that a promising rumor that must be checked out.

And then that checking out should be back to the original source. I realize everyone doesn't have access to the archives. But if you got the information from a microfilm produced by the Church, shouldn't you have said that? We then would know what the source was. Simply citing the archives as the source gives the impression that you saw the document yourself. I think that is misleading.

I think I am like a lot of people who are reading histories. We don't have the time, or the access, or the inclination to go to a work and then personally check every cited source. We want to, and we expect to be able to trust the author that he has been meticulous in the research, and that he has personally checked out the material he presents. That's his job. If he doesn't want to do it, then he should find some other genre for his writing talents.

And I don't think I am alone in thinking if a person has made a serious error about a source, then that calls the entire work into question.

And what is the big thing about Mr. Vogel? Are you Dr. Vogel and need for William Schryver to use your title?

[truth dancer]

Hi Charity,

And I don't think I am alone in thinking if a person has made a serious error about a source, then that calls the entire work into question.

Who are you suggesting made a "serious error," and what is that "serious error"?

With all due respect, you sound like you still do not understand the situation.

I suppose if the document didn't ever exist that would be a serious error, or maybe if Dan completely miscontrued its contents or totally made up something that was non existent, but of course this is not the case.

And what is the big thing about Mr. Vogel? Are you Dr. Vogel and need for William Schryver to use your title?

Charity, it is rather unusual to "listen" to a conversation amongst people and have one person repeatedly refer to another in the third person.. don't you think?

What is up with that?

~dancer~

[charity]

truth dancer, I am not convinced that the document Dan Vogel cited is what he says it is. He has said it is in the Church Archives. That has been questioned. His citation for it in the book is squiffy. By that I mean it is misleading at best. He says he knew about it from other people and other publications. I have stated I think that is like a promising rumor to check out. Evidently he didn't not check it out to what I would call scholarly standards. He went off a microfilm furnished by professional anti-Mormons. And yet, the citations says that it is in Church Archives as though that were a provable fact. We don't know that it is, given the source.

He says the Tanners can be reliable sources. They may be reliable about some things, but they have shown they do not have a good track record for reliability about anything Mormon. So I wouldn't trust them.

Dan Vogel, I don't know you. I don't know what kind of a person you are. And am not likely to find out on the message board. My mom always told me that a person is known by the kind of company he keeps. You "hang around" with anti-Mormons and they say nice things about you. That makes me suspicious of you. So you have to go the extra mile to convince me you can be trusted. Using citations properly is a big part of that. I don't think you did, in this instance.

[truth dancer]

Charity,

Dan Vogel, I don't know you. I don't know what kind of a person you are. And am not likely to find out on the message board. My mom always told me that a person is known by the kind of company he keeps. You "hang around" with anti-Mormons and they say nice things about you. That makes me suspicious of you. So you have to go the extra mile to convince me you can be trusted. Using citations properly is a big part of that. I don't think you did, in this instance.

I think we finally got to your issue.

This is nonsense. Wow. If you do not know Dan, why do you say he "hangs around" with "anti-Mormons"?

You obviously have not heard the very complimentary and respectful comments from numerous mormon scholars regarding Dan's book. I have personally heard many scholars praise his scholarship and contribution to the body of work concerning JS.

Anyone here happen to attend the Book of Mormon round table in SLC at the library last month? His work was publically acknowledged by Mormon and non-mormon scholars alike in most complimentary terms.

And, if you think "anti-Mormons" say nice things about Dan, you should check out how some feel on RFM. Your assumptions and mind reading are completely incorrect.

~dancer~

[charity]

truth dancer, come on. His books are published by Signature Books, for Pete's sake! And you should read the dust jacket blurbs that praise him! That was what I was referring to.

And there is this. He rejects the idea that Joseph Smith was a prophet called by God. That is a bias that is going to color everything he interprets in the research he does. I reject his rejection. That is my bias. But I am not going to believe any of his interpretations that show Joseph wasn't a prophet.

When I see his books being published by Deseret Book, I will trust him a little more. But I will still look at everything from a different view point.

But I still want to know where his sources come from. And trying to make me think he saw something in the Church Archives, when he really only saw a microfilm of it furnished through an anti-Mormon source is a long ways from reliable in my book.

[Uncle Dale]

truth dancer, come on. His books are published by Signature Books, for Pete's sake! And you should read the dust jacket blurbs that praise him! That was what I was referring to.

And there is this. He rejects the idea that Joseph Smith was a prophet called by God. That is a bias that is going to color everything he interprets in the research he does. I reject his rejection. That is my bias. But I am not going to believe any of his interpretations that show Joseph wasn't a prophet.

When I see his books being published by Deseret Book, I will trust him a little more. But I will still look at everything from a different view point.

But I still want to know where his sources come from. And trying to make me think he saw something in the Church Archives, when he really only saw a microfilm of it furnished through an anti-Mormon source is a long ways from reliable in my book.

It looks as though the crux of the problem is here finally unveiled.

And, it being an honest answer, none should criticize the implicit testimony.

However, for the benefit of those who may not immediately see what I see, allow me

to summarize (also to confirm whether I am correct)...

God has given you a testimony that the Book of Mormon is true, that Joseph Smith

was a true prophet, and therefore that the Church and its doctrinal message is true.

Dan Vogel, on the other hand, has left the ranks of that church and associated with

people who read Signature Books productions -- who tend to be liberal LDS, inactive

LDS, ex-LDS, or, as you say "anti-Mormons."

A man is known by the company he keeps, and therefore you see Dan as either a

bad man or at least as a fallen, ex-member, who hinders the latter day work and thus

plays into the hands of the adversary.

No ultimate good can come of such things, therefore the works of such a person

(including his/her books) can hardly be good, honest, helpful or true.

From such a stance, you have no qualms in throwing the first stone.

Uncle Dale

[truth dancer]

Hi Charity...

When I see his books being published by Deseret Book, I will trust him a little more. But I will still look at everything from a different view point.

Thank you for letting us know where you stand on this.

But I still want to know where his sources come from. And trying to make me think he saw something in the Church Archives, when he really only saw a microfilm of it furnished through an anti-Mormon source is a long ways from reliable in my book.

Perhaps you missed the following from Dan,

Let me repeat. The Tanners are not my source for the document.

~dancer~

[Calm]

When I see his books being published by Deseret Book

If you are looking for scholarship and research type books, DB is probably not the best place to start. Not that it completely lacks in such books, but the majority are published elsewhere. University presses are a better bet, imo.

[charity]

truth dancer, you are an impassioned defender. Dan Vogel said this, "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." So, this admits that he uses the Tanners as A source.

I know he did say he had been "aware" of it from other people and publications.

So did he see it on a microfilm furnished by the Church, without any intervening hands, or at the Church archives, or where from? We don't know. Because he doesn't tell us.

truth dancer, I have stated my position as clearly as I can. If you have a specific question to ask or a statement you want me to respond to I will, otherwise, I think I have said all I want to say on the subject. Until we hear from someone who knows if that Ms really exists in the archives.

To calmoriah, so DB does a lot more than esoteric scholarly texts, but DB isn't anti-Mormon, at least.