Vogel's 'making Of A Prophet' Revisited

[USU78]

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.

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

[William Schryver]

This is positively my final post on this long-since wearisome topic.

Vogel:

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.

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

[Hawkmoon]

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.

[Dan Vogel]

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.

[Hawkmoon]

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?

[Uncle Dale]

Hark! What do we hear? Two lonely voices in the wilderness. Voices of reason, I

[Troubled]

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?

[phaedrus ut]

Troubled,

The particular book in question is Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet

Reviews at Signature Books

No, Dan, That

[kawikadave]

I said...

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...

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.

[Uncle Dale]

No, Dan, That

[Dan Vogel]

Mr. Schryver,

This is positively my final post on this long-since wearisome topic.

I

[Dan Vogel]

Troubled,

The particular book in question is Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet

Reviews at Signature Books

No, Dan, That

[alter idem]

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.

[USU78]

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

[Dan Vogel]

Alter Idem,

If it turns out Will was wrong in his assertions, the mature thing to do would be to apologize.

USU,

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

[Alf O'Mega]

All your haranguing did was make you look like a poor man's Will.

That was rather the point, yes.

Any idea what it would take to sound like a rich man's Will?

[solomarineris]

FARMS Review

No, Dan, That

[noel00]

Dan, I have yet to read your biography, but as I discussed with my wife it is on my wish list in time for Christmas. You mentioned once that you had met with the late Wesley Walters who shared his material with you. I also notice on the Dialogue page that Michael Quinn in a long paper also mentions that he met with Walters. It seems that his work did have some effect on the early history of Joseph Smith. In any future assessments how do you see his research being considered in discussions of Smith's life. I know some here obsess about the handling of the 1826 trial documents somehow claiming he stole them.

[USU78]

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, As far as I'm concerned, the matter does not hinge on the result of WS' 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.

You overstate, sir. He asked the question, since he could not find the document referenced in your now infamous footnote, whether someone else had had similar experiences with other footnotes in your works. It's a fair question. After some considerable time, you replied and gave your story. That's fine. You're not required to be here. But he did ask for your participation from the get-go. A timelier participation and response would have helped, not hindered, but you have no duty to respond when asked a question by anybody. This stuff is all voluntary.

You have breached no duty. But then, if one asks you a question and there is no response during a time you are plainly participating elsewhere on this board, what do you expect Will to think, exactly?

That things went in a different direction that perhaps many would have preferred in the thread is nobody's and everybody's fault.

But don't misrepresent what happened.

I for one am not impressed with your thread here. If you're going to complain about things like tone and respectfulness, you ought to be a little less curt, dismissive, and combative yourself.

So . . . my advice is still good, I think. Wait and see what Will chooses to do after his request to the bebunned ones is responded to.

USU "Crimeny!" 78

[Uncle Dale]

But don't misrepresent what happened.

You do! You do!

And I can PROVE it!

Uncle "well, not prove it exactly, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once!" Dale

[USU78]

You do! You do! And I can PROVE it!

Uncle "well, not prove it exactly, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once!" Dale

You're just mad because I made you pick up the check at the Lahaina Hilton.

And I swear I have no idea how those towels and robes got into your luggage.

USU "Check, please!" 78

[Marvelous]

Can you honestly say you wouldn't have taken umbrage at Will's charges if they were leveled at you?

The lateness of Dan's response is no excuse for Will's attacking his credibility and integrity. Will's original response in this thread speaks volumes about his maturity and character. It is Will who seems disingenous in this whole matter. As Dan pointed out, he originally didn't seem aware that the document in question even existed. He has been evasive about this point since it was made.

[cksalmon]

Can you honestly say you wouldn't have taken umbrage at Will's charges if they were leveled at you?

The lateness of Dan's response is no excuse for Will's attacking his credibility and integrity. Will's original response in this thread speaks volumes about his maturity and character. It is Will who seems disingenous in this whole matter. As Dan pointed out, he originally didn't seem aware that the document in question even existed. He has been evasive about this point since it was made.

This goes back to my contention that the OP part 1 was more about WS than about DV's citation.

I have yet to see anyone, except Charity, get behind WS's motion to make this a Big Deal.

And if it's about retaliation for the treatment of Nibley, well, I, personally, just haven't had any reason to attack Nibley's scholarship—despite whatever mistakes may lurk in his footnotes.

I'm personally satisfied with the LDS studies that have been done showing that his scholarship is marred by occasional mistakes, but nothing intentional. I just wouldn't start a thread entitled, "Mistakes in Nibley's Scholarship."

Frankly, because I think such a thread would, inevitably, major on the minors, rather than address relevantly interesting issues.

But that's just me.

Best.

CKS