Vogel's The Making Of A Prophet

[Zeitgeist]

Not so fast there Will. I wrote that in my post I was going from memory and would have to do some checking. The document does indeed exist. Which is pertenient to what Vogel was saying. It is hardly misleading. The note says where it was located, which again has very little bearing on the document itself. I question what you are trying to accomplish. This hardly puts a mark on the book. I can understand if you don't like the book. Few who believe do. But this mistake this as a purposeful concotion is hardly the case.

I am checking out the reference and will have the mystery solved I hope to satisfy you all. As I said before I too had heard that this document was once in the Egyptian papers, not from the Tanners, but in an article from Nibley. I am checking the references on this. I will admit my error if I am wrong, which I hope you might do as well.

Zeitgeist

[LadySundancer]

LSD QUOTE

The paper exists.

WS:

True.

LSD QUOTE

The paper WAS part of the JS Egyptian collection.

WS:

False.

It is fascinating, however, to observe how Mr. Vogel's little attempt at mitigation:

Dan Vogel QUOTE

It is possible that the document was moved from the Kirtland Egyptian Papers Collection since it really doesn

[Zeitgeist]

I believe it was indeed listed in the Egyptian Papers, see BYU Studies Vol. 11 No. 4 (Summer 1971): 350-399, Hugh Nibley. The Tanners list the item at The Tanners I think are correct to say it was among the papers, as it was when they first wrote of it. Since then the papers have been moved and reassigned numbers, yes even parts were sent to other designations. I do not have a copy of the manuscript and cannot locate my Tanner copy so I cannot honestly tell you which one the Tanners claim it is and where exactly they place it. Vogel however, is not making up a document as you seem to acknowledge and it appears that it was once very likely part of the Egptian Manuscripts. According to Nibley's article there are a number of items that are no longer listed in the current Kirtland Egyptian Papers manifest. So things were moved, very liekly that one of these documents was indeed the item in question. Is this dishonest? No. Shoddy research? No.

Again I could be wrong here as I do not have the manuscript in question on hand to actually see it, but it is verified by several people as existing, and that it was in Oliver Cowdery's hand. For the answer specifically I would talk to Edward Ashment or Brent Metcalfe. Ashment would definitely know it, Brent would very likely know it.

If you can copy the document in question we can compare it to the older list to see if it was indeed in the original Kirtland Egytpian Papers registry.

Zeitgeist

[Dan Vogel]

Charity,

Mr. Vogel, I read what you said, and if I must remind you this is what you said, "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."

Assumed is the word you used. And the reproduction of the microfilm is the one the Tanners used. What part of the connection are you just not getting? Or do you want to revise that statement that you did not rely on that reproduction which was of dubious provenance? truth dancer, you must have missed that part.

Both TD and I have corrected you several times on this. This is my clarification, again.

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.

I don

[charity]

Dan Vogel, I wouldn't have responded, except I see a shift in your position. Let me compare you own words: First you said, " "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."

Then ou 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."

It seems to me the second position is a much softer position, from "assumed" to "perhaps influenced by."

And since you brought up the idea of questioning people and their motives, why is not okay for me to voice some skepticism (and I made no charges) about the Tanners, when you have tried to completely destroy the reputations of the 11 witnesses?

Oh, I remember. Anti-Mormons always want to hold LDS to different standards than they abide by.

[Uncle Dale]

Oh, I remember. Anti-Mormons always want to hold LDS to different standards than they abide by.

Sweeping generalizations dripping in hostile sarcasm get threads shut down, charity.

You made your best points several postings back. So, why not quit while you're ahead

and have some claim to holding the moral high ground?

As a serious dedicated anti-Mormon, I am beginning to find your hostile over-generalizations

offensive.

My advice: Don't keep beating a dead horse.

Uncle Dale

[truth dancer]

Hi Charity...

I'm not sure if you seriously do not understand or if you are purposely misrepresenting the situation.

Either way, I think it may be good to step back for a sec.

You don't want to read non faith promoting literature. Fine. You were honest about it and I think we all get from where you are coming.

No need to disparage well respected scholars who write material for which you are not well suited.

~dancer~

Edit - clarity

[Dan Vogel]

Will,

This thread must now officially represent one of the most classic examples of the peculiar contramo talent for seeing nothing but that which seems to support its skewed view of the world.

Reading minds again? And who are you to question our world view? You are the one who has demonstrated your lack of proportion by make insinuations about an entire book based on what you perceived was an error in one endnote.

I showed where Mr. Vogel had claimed, via a footnote, that a certain document was contained in the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers. As the Church Historian

[Dan Vogel]

Mr. Broadhurst,

'Twould be interesting to see Dan move into a study of the Kirtland period in a big

way. Scott Kenny is now writing a book on that era of Church history and once the

new volume is released there may be something of a rekindling of interest in that part

of our history.

Especially during the first years of the Kirtland experience there is little primary

source material for us to consult -- the pickings get a little better after Woodruff,

G. A. Smith and some other literate converts joined the Church.

I would think that Dan Vogel is well positioned to chase down new and unexamined

documentary sources for at least the Ohio Saints during the 1830s. Such a compilation

of previously unused sources could form the basis for a study of Joseph Smith's motives

and actions in bringing forth the JST, Book of Abraham, etc.

How about it, Dan -- are you interested?

Just as soon as I get this DHC project finished, I'm headed for the Ohio/Missouri period of JS's life. Can't wait to get started.

[Uncle Dale]

Mr. Broadhurst,

'Twould be interesting to see Dan move into a study of the Kirtland period in a big

way. Scott Kenny is now writing a book on that era of Church history and once the

new volume is released there may be something of a rekindling of interest in that part

of our history.

Especially during the first years of the Kirtland experience there is little primary

source material for us to consult -- the pickings get a little better after Woodruff,

G. A. Smith and some other literate converts joined the Church.

I would think that Dan Vogel is well positioned to chase down new and unexamined

documentary sources for at least the Ohio Saints during the 1830s. Such a compilation

of previously unused sources could form the basis for a study of Joseph Smith's motives

and actions in bringing forth the JST, Book of Abraham, etc.

How about it, Dan -- are you interested?

Just as soon as I get this DHC project finished, I'm headed for the Ohio/Missouri period of JS's life. Can't wait to get started.

Goody! goody! goody! -- Mr. "Brother" Vogel

Uncle "I'll see you there ---- in spirit, I mean" Dale

[charity]

truth dancer, "not well suited?" If you can't win an argument on its merits, throw in an insult, huh? I won't respond to your next posts aimed at me, if you post back. So don't take a lack of response as giving in to anything you may say next.

[Dan Vogel]

Charity,

Dan Vogel, I wouldn't have responded, except I see a shift in your position. Let me compare you own words: First you said, " "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."

Then ou 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."

It seems to me the second position is a much softer position, from "assumed" to "perhaps influenced by."

The part I would like you to acknowledge, and which you keep getting wrong, is that reference to the Tanners was to publishing the microfilm and that I did not say they were my source for the document.

And since you brought up the idea of questioning people and their motives, why is not okay for me to voice some skepticism (and I made no charges) about the Tanners, when you have tried to completely destroy the reputations of the 11 witnesses?

I have done nothing of the sort. I have not questioned their sincerity. Will you ever get anything right?

Oh, I remember. Anti-Mormons always want to hold LDS to different standards than they abide by.

This is why you are here. To write the glib one-liner and get high-fives from your fellow apologists. Rather juvenile, don't you think?

[cksalmon]

Tracking back through the thread, I have come to the sneaking suspicion that this thread was really much more about William Schryver's scholarly aptitude than Dan Vogel's citation.

Unfortunately, with the exception of Charity, no one

[truth dancer]

Hi Charity...

truth dancer, "not well suited?" If you can't win an argument on its merits, throw in an insult, huh? I won't respond to your next posts aimed at me, if you post back. So don't take a lack of response as giving in to anything you may say next.

[Ray Agostini]

Unfortunately, with the exception of Charity, no one

[Uncle Dale]

Mormon "apologists", by the way, have praised the Tanners for providing original documents....

Then again, at least one "apologist" for something or another has gotten down and

dirty with the Dynamic Duo of Deseret in recent years:

Anti-Tannerism Home Page

Uncle "I've been a baaaaad boy" Dale

[Dan Vogel]

Near the beginning of this thread, Mr. Schryver said he wasn

[Alf O'Mega]

In the opening post of this thread, William Schryver writes:

On page 114 of Dan Vogel

[Who Knows]

Are there any other questionable claims and/or details you have come across in the course of your reading?

Now that would be a fun thread.

I've got a few of those myself that I could share. But I think Chozah/Provis/Will's been embarassed enough for now.

[Uncle Dale]

Are there any other questionable claims and/or details you have come across in the course of your reading?

Now that would be a fun thread.

I've got a few of those myself that I could share. But I think Chozah/Provis/Will's been embarassed enough for now.

I noticed something interesting the other day...

Human beingsare prone to making mistakes: little tiny mistakes, big bad mistakes,

and even stinky, embarrassing mistakes.

Uncle "including Mormons --- wash my mouth out with soap!" Dale

[William Schryver]

What I did say in my original post, and what the contramos have suggested I said are two very distinct things.

I noted the inaccurate footnote in Vogel

[Alf O'Mega]

Nevertheless, I am satisfied that our objective readers recognize that the footnote is clearly in error.

Why do you continue to make this extraordinary claim? There is no such footnote!

[Zeta-Flux]

Dear William,

I am a believing Mormon, so know this post comes from a desire to help (not criticize). I read your posts, and came to the same conclusions about your wording that others have. It sounded, to me, like you were claiming that the document was *nowhere to be found* and that you had checked this yourself. By leaving out the parenthetical phrase "(in the KEP)" you inadvertantly changed the meaning of your statement greatly. Vogel and others are not misrepresenting you as much as coming to a mistaken understanding of what you were claiming, due to your poor wording.

Consider this seriously. Your whole basis for this thread was the fact that you found a footnote to an *existing* document, which you knew existed, but felt that Vogel had given an incorrect citation for. Most readers wouldn't find this terribly impressive (myself included, having written a few papers, and refereed a few others, and found errors occur occassionally, and quite unintentionally), and so would look into your posts for some *reason* for the thread. That reason seemed to be that no such document existed (it was "nowhere to be found"). It was only later that you clarified that you meant not to be found currently in the place Vogel said it was. But that isn't such a big issue at all (especially considering it might have been moved).

Anyway, what is the point of this thread continuing? Maybe someone should talk to a moderator and get it shut down.

Best wishes,

Zeta-Flux

[William Schryver]

Dear William,

I am a believing Mormon, so know this post comes from a desire to help (not criticize). I read your posts, and came to the same conclusions about your wording that others have. It sounded, to me, like you were claiming that the document was *nowhere to be found* and that you had checked this yourself. By leaving out the parenthetical phrase "(in the KEP)" you inadvertantly changed the meaning of your statement greatly. Vogel and others are not misrepresenting you as much as coming to a mistaken understanding of what you were claiming, due to your poor wording.

Consider this seriously. Your whole basis for this thread was the fact that you found a footnote to an *existing* document, which you knew existed, but felt that Vogel had given an incorrect citation for. Most readers wouldn't find this terribly impressive (myself included, having written a few papers, and refereed a few others, and found errors occur occassionally, and quite unintentionally), and so would look into your posts for some *reason* for the thread. That reason seemed to be that no such document existed (it was "nowhere to be found"). It was only later that you clarified that you meant not to be found currently in the place Vogel said it was. But that isn't such a big issue at all (especially considering it might have been moved).

Anyway, what is the point of this thread continuing? Maybe someone should talk to a moderator and get it shut down.

Best wishes,

Zeta-Flux

The failure to understand the intent of this thread is not attributable to me. I stated the intent clearly in my initial post:

And my question for discussion is for those who have read The Making of a Prophet:

Are there any other questionable claims and/or details you have come across in the course of your reading?

And I strongly disagree with your interpretation of my statements. They are absolutely clear in every respect. You will note how careful I was in every instance to specifiy that the document was not to be found in the Joseph Smith Egyptian papers.

Why do you suppose I was so careful to always include that phrase? Duh! I was anticipating exactly what Vogel ended up doing. And, as I noted above, the issue is irrelevant to the fact that Vogel's claim about the location of the document in question was in error.

[Zeitgeist]

Oy Vey!

Zeitgeist