Dan Vogel's Critique Of Pbs Special

[The Dude]

The Dude,

I often have a chuckle when I read your answers...

Give a straight answer, with sources: are all shamans fake?

Ouch, you got me!

But seriously, what does it matter if a few shamans have had bona-fide connections to the supernatural? Some of them were fakes, wouldn't you say? Probably most, because it's easy enough to fake when you don't have genuine clairvoyant powers. That's enough to lead into my question to you: was Joseph Smith for real when he said he saw treasure in his stone, or was he another faker?

Ever since I read Rough Stone Rolling, I've been fascinated with how Bushman portrayed the treasure seeking business as "preparation". It goes both ways, sort of. For critics, the treasure business was preparation for further fraud and deception under the guise of religion. For believers, the treasure business was preparation to employ stones and divinatory powers to find and translate the Book of Mormon -- but that carries the implication that JS had real treasure seeking powers. Or does it? I'm still looking for a straight answer.

[Machtyn]

Ever since I read Rough Stone Rolling, I've been fascinated with how Bushman portrayed the treasure seeking business as "preparation". It goes both ways, sort of. For critics, the treasure business was preparation for further fraud and deception under the guise of religion. For believers, the treasure business was preparation to employ stones and divinatory powers to find and translate the Book of Mormon -- but that carries the implication that JS had real treasure seeking powers. Or does it? I'm still looking for a straight answer.

There could be a third option. He was human (and a teenager at that), wanted money and gold, and tried any means, however crazy, to obtain a better life. JS has always admitted he wasn't perfect and he succumbed to the foibles of humanity. It was that day's pyramid scheme, and Joseph fell for it.

[bjw]

FIRST VISION (1820)

Placement of Ken Verdoia's statement about revivals and religious controversy in the "Burned Over District" implies that was a motivation for JS's 1820 vision.

Dan Peterson, Jeffrey Holland, and Marlin Jensen all describe 1838 version of vision with two personages without any qualifying phrase like JS "claimed" or "said." It is described ahistorically as fact. Holland says that God and Jesus appeared to JS "with all the biblical features, the way Moses said he saw them, with eyes and ears and hands and faces." Moses saw the Father and Son? However, this claim that Moses saw God as a man goes unchallenged.

Surprise! Not according to the 1832 version, which states that prior to his vision--

In this 1832 account, the question of which church is true was not even asked. Why would it? JS had already concluded the Christian world were in a state of apostasy. So he went directly to God for forgiveness, and obtained it, according to this version. He was even told by the one personage who appeared--Jesus--

Thus JS didn't need organized religion, because he was saved by believing in Jesus. Also, since Jesus appeared, there was nothing in JS's theology in 1832 about God the Father being a corporeal being. The "Lectures on Faith" included in the 1835 D&C said the Father was a "spirit"; the concept of God's corporeality came later.

I have an observation to make about the First Vision problem. If this story really kept being changed as much as critics claim, then wouldn't someone in the Mormon culture back then have spoke up and said, "Wait a minute, this isn't what we were taught, the story has been changed..." and when enough people saw this the church would have collapsed with its founding story being shown to be a lie.

Picture today, what if the church changed the official story that three personages appeared, Moroni, God, and Jesus, and God the Father said this is my beloved son... pointing to Jesus and then introduced Moroni as an angelic being. What if they slipped this in unnoticed into all our church literature? I can guarantee our membership would be reduced by a half, especially recent converts. So, I'm thinking there's more to this First Vision story than we know.

[Dan Vogel]

Vogel:

But Dan, youâ??ve always worked so hard to resist that â??positivistâ? label. How can you so explicitly claim it for yourself now?

I prefer an empiracal approach to BOM historicity as opposed to praying about it. What about you? Actually, I prefer the term naturalist. A rejection of the supernatural does not automatically make one a positivist. The two positions are philosophically distinct. A positivist might be a naturalist, but a naturalist is not necessarily a positivist. Positivists are methodological monists who aspire to unify social and natural sciences under one method, whereas naturalists are methodological pluralists who recognize the value of reason and metaphysics. While a positivist believes that objectivity is possible, a naturalist has no commitment to that notion, at least not in the sense discussed by positivists.

But tell me, Dan, if President Hinckley were to call a news conference tomorrow and proclaim that we no longer adhere to a belief in literal First Vision/BoM/BoA historicity, would you start doing your home teaching again?

I didnâ??t think so. So, your objections go a little deeper than that, donâ??t they?

I have no agenda beyond solving historical puzzles. And I don't think President Hinkley has any jurisdiction in this matter.

[Dan Vogel]

T-Shirt,

Dan, why did you leave out part of the quote?

I got tired of typing. I gave enough to get the idea.

Joseph may not have mentioned the question in this account, but he certainly mentions the answer.

Yes, but the answer agree with what he had already concluded--all were apostate. The point I was making was he didn't have the question of which church was true, because he had already concluded they were all wrong.

Yet earlier in the very same account, Joseph specifically mentions that this vision was the first step in restoring the true gospel to the earth. Why didn't you mention that?

Looking back from 1832, yes. But as the story is told, there was no reason for him to assume that was the case in 1820.

I am not one that believes the first vision necessarily requires that Joseph recognized a physical body. I have no problem believing that his understand of God having a corporeal body came later.

Good.

It does mention the Father. Early in the account he says, "A History of the life of Joseph Smith Jr an account of his marvilous experience and of all the mighty acts which he doeth in the name of Jesus Chist the son of the living God...". Now, it is true that he does not specifically mention the Father in the visitation, but it cannot be ruled out either, the wording is rather awkward.

Jesus introduces himself. One can always harmonize anything if motivated, but in the context of JS's theology in 1832, Jesus was both the Father and Son. I don't know about you, but I find it hard to believe that a document attempting to bolster JS's authority and singularity among his own followers that he would leave out such a significant detail.

[William Schryver]

Vogel:

I prefer an empiracal (sic)approach to BOM historicity as opposed to praying about it.

No doubt.

What about you?

I am, as has been clearly established, a dyed in the wool supernaturalist. And damn proud to say so. But I can appreciate your and others' skepticism. Had I not experienced the things I have, I could not have believed it myself.

Actually, I prefer the term naturalist.

But youâ??re the one who just said you were:

â?¦ a "hard rock empiricist" â?¦

which is just a verifiable experiment away from proclaiming yourself a positivist.

Positivism is a philosophy that states that the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge, and that such knowledge can only come from positive affirmation of theories through strict scientific method. (The infallible Wikipedia)

Positivism: â?¦ knowledge based on natural phenomena and their properties and relations as verified by the empirical sciences. (Merriam-Webster Online)

Maybe you'd prefer "naturalistic empiricist." As far as I'm concerned, you can call yourself whatever youâ??d like. As Iâ??ve already posited previously, Iâ??m actually convinced that you only use the Naturalist/Positivist/Empiricist mask as a trojan horse â?? youâ??re actually a nihilist when it comes to Mormon history. Youâ??re only truly interested in establishing what didnâ??t happen. Youâ??re only tangentially concerned with actual historical events and their interpretation.

I have no agenda beyond solving historical puzzles.

I rest my case.

[Zakuska]

Perhaps Mr. Vogel hasnt read this one yet from the Joseph Smith DVD rebuttle.

CLAIM: Joseph Smith gave nine different accounts of what happened during the First Vision. He just couldn't keep his story straight, even when it came to who his heavenly visitors were.

The first three non-Mormon accounts listed (Willard Chase - written 6 years after the fact; John Clark - written 15 years after the fact; Peter Bauder - written 4 years after the fact) are obviously not about the 1820 First Vision, but rather the 1823 angel Moroni visitation. Either the critics are misinformed or they want to make it appear as though Joseph Smith's first claimed visionary experience was of an angel and that he later changed it into an encounter with Deity to be more impressiveâ??the angel story then being refashioned as a second meeting with divine beings. The records do not support this scenario.

The fourth account listed is from an 1832 unpublished history which was written partly by the Prophet himself. Critics focus on the fact that in this text, only Jesus Christ is described as making an appearance to Joseph Smithâ??the Father is mentioned by name but not as a visitor. But they fail to notice that the testimony given by the Father during the First Vision (which is recited in the 1838 account as, "This is my Beloved Son") is, in fact, referred to in the opening paragraph of the 1832 document and directly precedes the recounting of the First Vision event. And they also do not seem to be aware of the fact that the Prophet deliberately constructed the 1832 narrative to parallel the theophany experienced by the apostle Paul (which accounts for the document's focus on the appearance of the Savior but not the Father). FAIRWiki link

The fifth account listed onscreen as 1834 was produced by Oliver Cowdery in 1834 and 1835. The critics do not tell their audience that this two-part narrative began by telling the orthodox First Vision story but then suddenly switched over to the Book of Mormon story because of a written request made by William W. Phelps. When this document is carefully evaluated its usefulness for the anti-Mormon agenda quickly evaporates. FAIRWiki link

The sixth account is 1835a. It could also be labeled as the Robert Mathias interview of November 9th. The two personages who are listed as appearing in this recital are obviously the Father and the Son. This becomes apparent when the text is compared to Joseph Smith's 1832, 1838, and 1842 accounts.

1835a - "another personage soon appeared like unto the first"

1842 - "two glorious personages who exactly resembled each other in features, and likeness"

1835a - "he testified unto me that Jesus Christ is the Son of God"

1838 - "This is my beloved Son"

1835a - "he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee"

1832 - "he spake unto me saying, 'Joseph, my son, thy sins are forgiven thee'"

The seventh account is 1835b. It could be referred to as the Erastus Holmes interview of November 14th. The critics cry "inconsistency" when they point out that the Prophet says in this text that when he was fourteen years old he had his "first visitation of angels." But just five days previousâ??in the 1835a accountâ??the Prophet stated that he saw "many angels" in addition to the two main personages of the vision. Thus, it is proper to say that Joseph Smith's first visitation of angels occurred during the First Vision experience, but they were not the only heavenly beings who were present.

The eighth account listed on the DVD is the 1838 recital which was eventually included in the canon of the LDS Church. The two celestial visitants are clearly identifiable in this document as the Father and the Son.

The ninth account is from an 1844 book on religions in the United States by I. Daniel Rupp. The statement in the DVD that the two personages in this account are "unidentified" is quite pointless since Rupp's book simply reprinted a slightly modified version of the Prophet's 1842 Wentworth Letter. This letter was published in the LDS Church's newspaper exactly one month before Joseph Smith printed the History of the Church First Vision recital (initially written down in 1838) which clearly identifies the Father and the Son.

The DVD fails to mention a substantial number of additional First Vision recitals given during the Prophet's lifetime:

1831 sermon by the Prophet reported by Lorenzo Snow

1833 remarks by the Prophet reported by John Alger

1834 sermon by the Prophet reported by Joseph Curtis and Edward Stevenson

1835 missionary statements reported by Samuel Richards

1837 sermon by the Prophet reported by Mary Horne

1839 interview with the Prophet's parents reported by Wandle Mace

1840 missionary pamphlet published by Orson Pratt

1842 missionary pamphlet published by Orson Hyde

1843 sermon by the Prophet reported by Levi Richards

1843 interview with Joseph Smith published in the Pittsburgh Gazette

1844 interview with the Prophet reported by Alexander Neibaur

These eyewitnesses badly damage the anti-Mormon viewpoint on Joseph Smith's First Vision story because they demonstrate consistency in identifying the visitors in the Sacred Grove.

The DVD producers have indicated that they gathered information for this section of their movie from the website of the Institute for Religious Research. It is curious that they have left out item #10 on the website from their onscreen list of alleged First Vision accounts. This item is an interview with Martin Harris which was published in Tiffany's Monthly in the year 1859. A simple comparison of the principal story elements of this account with Harris' 1827 account makes it clear that he was talking about the same thing in both instances - the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, not the First Vision.

http://en.fairmormon.org/index.php/Search_...VD:First_Vision

I'd like a call for fully anotated references for these 10 other accounts starting in 1831 and going until his death in 1844. I realize that the rebuttle was done very quickly but Id like to read these other accounts of the first vision my self.

[grego]

And I don't think President Hinkley has any jurisdiction in this matter.

Didn't quite answer the question...

[Dan Vogel]

Dan,

How many times must this be laid out on these boards? What is your definition of "contradiction"? Why do you call not mentioning something a contradiction?

I was thinking of differences and contradictions. Your assumption that JS merely added details in 1838 is inaccurate and begs the question. On a purely textual basis, the two accounts are in conflict. In 1832, Jesus introduces himself, and JS doesn't ask which church is true, because he has already concluded all churches are false. I don't think failing to mention the Father is a small matter.

[Zakuska]

Dan have you seen any of the 10 other Accounts as mentioned by the Fair Rebuttle? Given these are all second hand accounts of what Others heard the Prophet say...

[Dan Vogel]

But youâ??re the one who just said you were:

which is just a verifiable experiment away from proclaiming yourself a positivist.

Would a positivist use inductive logic or psychology?

Maybe you'd prefer "naturalistic empiricist." As far as I'm concerned, you can call yourself whatever youâ??d like. As Iâ??ve already posited previously, Iâ??m actually convinced that you only use the Naturalist/Positivist/Empiricist mask as a trojan horse â?? youâ??re actually a nihilist when it comes to Mormon history. Youâ??re only truly interested in establishing what didnâ??t happen. Youâ??re only tangentially concerned with actual historical events and their interpretation.

I understand that as a supernaturalist you think reading minds is possible, but this gift alludes you.

[Dan Vogel]

Dan have you seen any of the 10 other Accounts as mentioned by the Fair Rebuttle? Given these are all second hand accounts of what Others heard the Prophet say...

All the accounts are in EMD vol. 1. The first two date to 1901 and 1893.

[Zakuska]

EMD? Vol 1?

1901? it wasnt recorded until then?

[Dan Vogel]

I have an observation to make about the First Vision problem. If this story really kept being changed as much as critics claim, then wouldn't someone in the Mormon culture back then have spoke up and said, "Wait a minute, this isn't what we were taught, the story has been changed..." and when enough people saw this the church would have collapsed with its founding story being shown to be a lie.

Why would you think that? The 1832 account was never published during JS's lifetime.

Picture today, what if the church changed the official story that three personages appeared, Moroni, God, and Jesus, and God the Father said this is my beloved son... pointing to Jesus and then introduced Moroni as an angelic being. What if they slipped this in unnoticed into all our church literature? I can guarantee our membership would be reduced by a half, especially recent converts. So, I'm thinking there's more to this First Vision story than we know.

What would you have predicted before the church changed polygamy, Blacks and the priesthood, deleting parts of the temple cerimony? Would you have made the same predictions?

[William Schryver]

Vogel:

Would a positivist use inductive logic or psychology?

Iâ??ve made it clear that I donâ??t believe you are a positivist. You would consider positivism a shackle to your historical methodology.

I understand that as a supernaturalist you think reading minds is possible, but this gift alludes (sic) you.

It never ceases to amuse me when you rise to accuse someone of â??reading minds.â? I just turn to your account of Joseph Smithâ??s thoughts that night in September 1823, and I chuckle away â?¦

Oh, and by the way, itâ??s â??elude,â? not â??allude.â? Unless you were trying to make an indirect reference to the fact that I do have the gift of reading minds.

Speaking of the 1832 account of the First Vision, pursuant to your argument that the Father is not mentioned, you write:

Jesus introduces himself.

In the 1832 account, Joseph Smith only sees Jesus after receiving â?the testimony from on high.â? Or, in other words, â?This is my beloved Son.â? The fact that he later elaborates on the 1832 account by quoting the specific words of the â??testimony on highâ? does not mean that he â??createdâ? that detail in the interim. The two documents had very different purposes. The 1832 account was narrowly focused to address contemporary concerns; the 1838 account was intended to be a detailed, official rendition of the event. But you are consistent in your effort of isolating pieces of evidence for analysis; divorcing them from their context in order to further your objective of â??solving historical puzzlesâ? â?? even if it means crafting your own customized pieces to fill in the gaps.

â?¦ I find it hard to believe that a document attempting to bolster JS's authority and singularity among his own followers that he would leave out such a significant detail.

So, let me get this straight: youâ??re suggesting that Joseph Smith crafted this 1832 account with the express purpose of bolstering his â??authority and singularity among his own followers.â? And yet, the account was not even published during his lifetime. Seems to me to be a most peculiar way of pursuing his objective.

[bjw]

Why would you think that? The 1832 account was never published during JS's lifetime.

What would you have predicted before the church changed polygamy, Blacks and the priesthood, deleting parts of the temple cerimony? Would you have made the same predictions?

Even if it was not published, the one that was eventually published did not contradict the Mormon public's general idea of what occurred in the First Vision. You would think we would find a big uproar with the people if the account published did not match up with what had been passed along orally among the people.

The doctrines you mentioned were later revised, but did not involve an account of an historical event being totally changed. For instance, when you take the tour at the Beehive House at SLC they flat out admit that God commanded polygamy in the early church and they show you where some of the other wives had their bedrooms. Now if the church revised the tour to completely leave out the other wives it would be an attempt to alter the historical event. This happened when the Brigham Young priesthood manual was published, leaving out the polygamy, and quite a few people complained about it. The D&C contains the two official declarations on polygamy and giving blacks the priesthood, and they have left the polygamy sections and the Book of Abraham in the canon, not attempting to cover them up with the exception of changing "white" to "pure" in the BoM.

The temple ceremony when given was "subject to revelation" and thus changeable. However, the main idea and main parts remain the same.

The alterations of the First Vision that the antis are talking about seem to be drastic changes, even more drastic than the temple ceremony in that the whole truthfullness of the church depends on the event. The church can change a ceremony or doctrine or two but the First Vision is what the whole church is built upon and without that it collapses. Therefore, it seems like someone would have complained if the published account did not match the oral tradition they had heard.

[Dan Vogel]

Vogel:

Iâ??ve made it clear that I donâ??t believe you are a positivist. You would consider positivism a shackle to your historical methodology.

Positivists didn't value any historiography. But aren't those who insist that historical analysis should not include psychological perspectives the one's leaning towards positivism?

It never ceases to amuse me when you rise to accuse someone of â??reading minds.â? I just turn to your account of Joseph Smithâ??s thoughts that night in September 1823, and I chuckle away â?¦

Certainly, that was an imaginative reconstruction of what happened if the angel didn't appear. But I made it clear that I was speculating about his moment of decision to deceive. I was trying to explain the pressures he was reacting to and his motivations for going forward. I thought that kind of thing was necessary to tell the story, but it was derived from information gleaned from the subtext of his writings and the BOM. Perhaps I could have handled it better, but that's what happens when you reject JS's version.

Oh, and by the way, itâ??s â??elude,â? not â??allude.â? Unless you were trying to make an indirect reference to the fact that I do have the gift of reading minds.

Thanks. I'm embarrassed. I don't proof read my posts.

In the 1832 account, Joseph Smith only sees Jesus after receiving â?the testimony from on high.â? Or, in other words, â?This is my beloved Son.â?

I don't see that at all in the document. The testimony on high is the First Vision as told later in the same document, which did not include mention of the Father. In the BOM, Jesus is the Father from on high, and in 1832 Jesus addresses JS as "my son."

The fact that he later elaborates on the 1832 account by quoting the specific words of the â??testimony on highâ? does not mean that he â??createdâ? that detail in the interim.

It doesn't mean that he had that detail in his mind but suppressed it either. This is where your mind reading kicks in and allows you to beg the question.

The two documents had very different purposes. The 1832 account was narrowly focused to address contemporary concerns; the 1838 account was intended to be a detailed, official rendition of the event. But you are consistent in your effort of isolating pieces of evidence for analysis; divorcing them from their context in order to further your objective of â??solving historical puzzlesâ? â?? even if it means crafting your own customized pieces to fill in the gaps.

Not so. Rather than assuming to know what the real historical event consisted of, I'm trying to examine the texts and the different historical settings in which they were created. I don't question that something happened in 1820; I just question the reliability of both versions. You assume the 1838 is a fuller account, but it has evidence of anachronisms--such as moving the 1824-25 revival to 1820, the conversions of his mother and siblings to Presbyterianism, and his prophetic call. I would argue that the earliest account is more accurate.

So, let me get this straight: youâ??re suggesting that Joseph Smith crafted this 1832 account with the express purpose of bolstering his â??authority and singularity among his own followers.â? And yet, the account was not even published during his lifetime. Seems to me to be a most peculiar way of pursuing his objective.

The reasons why JS started writing his history have nothing to do with why it wasn't completed. I believe he began writing his history about November 1832, and that it was intended to outline his credentials as for leading the church to counter difficulties he was having with church leaders (like Bishop Edward Partridge) in Missouri. Shortly after this, the saints in Missouri began experiencing persecutions and the focus shifted to other matters; that is, until the failure of Zion's Camp in 1834 and the immediate challenges to JS's leadership. In September and October 1834, JS and OC issued another history published in the Messenger and Advocate that described their ordinations by angels. This was in a series of letters to W. W. Phelps and the Missouri church, the purpose of which was said to bolster their faith. Pior to this, according to David Whitmer, president of the church in Missouri, and others, these angelic ordinations were unknown.

I hope this brief review gives you something to think about.

[Dan Vogel]

Even if it was not published, the one that was eventually published did not contradict the Mormon public's general idea of what occurred in the First Vision. You would think we would find a big uproar with the people if the account published did not match up with what had been passed along orally among the people.

You are assuming JS's First Vision was widely known to members before its publication in 1840 and 1842--it wasn't. Church members were not in a position of compare anything.

[Chris Smith]

Vogel:

I prefer an empiracal (sic)approach to BOM historicity as opposed to praying about it.

Oh, and by the way, itâ??s â??elude,â? not â??allude.â? Unless you were trying to make an indirect reference to the fact that I do have the gift of reading minds.

Anything to score a point, I guess.

[Doctor Steuss]

You are assuming JS's First Vision was widely known to members before its publication in 1840 and 1842--it wasn't. Church members were not in a position of compare anything.

I tend to like Givensâ?? thoughts on the First Vision: Old Post of By The Hand of Mormon Snip

[Scott Lloyd]

T-Shirt,

Yes, but the answer agree with what he had already concluded--all were apostate. The point I was making was he didn't have the question of which church was true, because he had already concluded they were all wrong.

He may have asked the question for confirmation. It would fit with the pattern of receiving personal revelation, the pattern that has been taught in the Church from the first -- that being that you first "study it out" in your own mind, arrive at a tentative conclusion on your own, then seek confirmation in prayer.

I see nothing to rule out the likelihood that Joseph's experience here was consistent with this pattern.

[why me]

Poor Joseph...for all his 'plotting' and 'schemeing to conquer the world throught the book of mormon, he just could not get the first vision story straight. I have no idea just why that was. When you consider all the time and effort he put into automatic writing the book of mormon and all the planning he took to relate how the story happened with visitations of angels etc, you would think that the first vision account would have been perfected. But no. He blew the first vision accounts.

And yet, we have oliver cowdery seeing heavenly personages with JS and others.

But how to explain JS's stupidity? If I were a fraudster I would get my story straight especially after spending so much time automatically writing the book of mormon. How could he have blown it? Boy, what a smuck JS was.

Now of course, maybe just maybe he did not consider his words to be important at that time and he used his words poorly. For after all, he had a work to do and how to relate the story just never crossed his mind. That sounds more like it. And how does one explain the statements from oliver about the visitation of John the Baptist and all the other heavenly visitations that occurred at that time. But the first vision is a real 'hang up' for some.

Why, I have no idea.

[William Schryver]

In the 1832 account, Joseph Smith only sees Jesus after receiving â?the testimony from on high.â? Or, in other words, â?This is my beloved Son.â?

I don't see that at all in the document.

Itâ??s in the first paragraph. Many students of these documents regard it as an oblique reference to the introduction given to the Son by the Father â?? which is precisely what Joseph Smith always claimed He does:

JST John 1

19. And no man hath seen God at any time, except he hath borne record of the Son â?¦

The translation of this portion of the New Testament occurred between November 20, 1831 and February 16, 1832. The 1832 version of the First vision was prepared later in 1832, probably in October or November. Joseph Smith clearly understood, during this time period, that God the Father always introduces His Son. This realization of the context of Joseph Smithâ??s doctrinal understanding permits us to reliably apply an interpretation to his statement that the first thing that happened in association with the First Vision is that he â??received the testimony from on high.â? In other words, the first thing he heard was â?This is my beloved Son.â?

The account remains quite consistent from 1832 to 1838:

1832:

â??firstly â?¦ receiving the testimony from on highâ?

1835:

â?He testified unto me that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.â?

1838:

â??This is my beloved Son â?¦

Vogel again:

The testimony on high is the First Vision as told later in the same document, which did not include mention of the Father.

Yes, we understand that is your interpretation. I consider it deeply flawed, and lacking of any real evidentiary foundation.

You assume the 1838 is a fuller account, but it has evidence of anachronisms--such as moving the 1824-25 revival to 1820 â?¦

Yawn â?¦

The 1820 vs. 1824-25 revival issue has been so often rebutted that I really neednâ??t touch upon it here. We understand your desire to deny revivals in 1820, but that simply doesnâ??t change the fact that the Palmyra Register reports considerable revival activity in the district during the 1820 period.

In September and October 1834, JS and OC issued another history published in the Messenger and Advocate that described their ordinations by angels. This was in a series of letters to W. W. Phelps and the Missouri church, the purpose of which was said to bolster their faith. Pior to this, according to David Whitmer, president of the church in Missouri, and others, these angelic ordinations were unknown.

What are you talking about, Dan? In the very document weâ??re discussing â?? the 1832 personal history, we read:

â?¦thirdly the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of Aangels to adminster the letter of the Gospel - the Law and commandments as they were given unto him - and the ordinencs, [clearly, the Aaronic Priesthood] forthly a confirmation and reception of the high Priesthood after the holy order of the son of the living God [clearly, the Melchizedek Priesthood] power and ordinence from on high to preach the Gospel in the administration and demonstration of the spirit the Kees of the Kingdom of God confered upon him â?¦

Sure sounds like an explicit reference to angelic ordinations to me. What do you think?

[Dan Vogel]

Will,

Itâ??â??s in the first paragraph. Many students of these documents regard it as an oblique reference to the introduction given to the Son by the Father â??â?? which is precisely what Joseph Smith always claimed He does: ...

The translation of this portion of the New Testament occurred between November 20, 1831 and February 16, 1832. The 1832 version of the First vision was prepared later in 1832, probably in October or November. Joseph Smith clearly understood, during this time period, that God the Father always introduces His Son. This realization of the context of Joseph Smithâ??â??s doctrinal understanding permits us to reliably apply an interpretation to his statement that the first thing that happened in association with the First Vision is that he â??â??received the testimony from on high.â?â? In other words, the first thing he heard was â?â?This is my beloved Son.â?â?

That's a stretch. Testimony from on high to JS was Jesus. You are trying to read what isn't there. That's why I said the BOM has Jesus as both Father and Son. The Bible Revision has nothing to do with it, since at the same time he made changes along the same lines as the BOM. This method of interpreting makes is quite desperate.

Yawn ��

The 1820 vs. 1824-25 revival issue has been so often rebutted that I really neednâ??â??t touch upon it here. We understand your desire to deny revivals in 1820, but that simply doesnâ??â??t change the fact that the Palmyra Register reports considerable revival activity in the district during the 1820 period.

Who says I'm denying that there were revivals in 1820? I said the revival that the 1838 account describes, the one in which JS's mother was converted, happened in 1824-25; by her own account, it happened after Alvin had died in 1823.

In September and October 1834, JS and OC issued another history published in the Messenger and Advocate that described their ordinations by angels. This was in a series of letters to W. W. Phelps and the Missouri church, the purpose of which was said to bolster their faith. Pior to this, according to David Whitmer, president of the church in Missouri, and others, these angelic ordinations were unknown.

What are you talking about, Dan? In the very document weâ??â??re discussing â??â?? the 1832 personal history, we read:

��thirdly the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of Aangels to adminster the letter of the Gospel - the Law and commandments as they were given unto him - and the ordinencs, [clearly, the Aaronic Priesthood] forthly a confirmation and reception of the high Priesthood after the holy order of the son of the living God [clearly, the Melchizedek Priesthood] power and ordinence from on high to preach the Gospel in the administration and demonstration of the spirit the Kees of the Kingdom of God confered upon him ��

This discussion is about why the 1832 history was written, which I maintain was to establish JS's authority against others who were challenging his preeminence among others who also held authority. This project was diverted and then taken up again in 1834. Until the publication of the last effort, according to Whitmer and others, angelic ordinations were unknown to them. Are you denying their testimonies? My main point wasn't to disprove such ordinations didn't occur, or that JS didn't mention them privately before that date. I'm concerned here about the forces that worked on JS to motivate him to write these documents; I thought you agreed that that was important?

Nevertheless, you should read carefully what the statement does and does not state, without anticipating what was said in 1838. That's difficult. Note that it says the "holy Priesthood by the ministring of Aangels," and that "angels" is plural. So, how is that a description of John the Baptist? I would suggest that this is a generic term, such like in the preamble to D&C 20.

D&C 20:1-10

1 THE rise of the Church of Christ in these last days, being one thousand eight hundred and thirty years since the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the flesh, it being regularly organized and established agreeable to the laws of our country, by the will and commandments of God, in the fourth month, and on the sixth day of the month which is called April--

2 Which commandments were given to Joseph Smith, Jun., who was called of God, and ordained an apostle of Jesus Christ, to be the first elder of this church;

3 And to Oliver Cowdery, who was also called of God, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to be the second elder of this church, and ordained under his hand;

4 And this according to the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, to whom be all glory, both now and forever. Amen.

5 After it was truly manifested unto this first elder that he had received a remission of his sins, he was entangled again in the vanities of the world;

6 But after repenting, and humbling himself sincerely, through faith, God ministered unto him by an holy angel, whose countenance was as lightning, and whose garments were pure and white above all other whiteness;

7 And gave unto him commandments which inspired him;

8 And gave him power from on high, by the means which were before prepared, to translate the Book of Mormon;

9 Which contains a record of a fallen people, and the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles and to the Jews also;

10 Which was given by inspiration, and is confirmed to others by the ministering of angels, and is declared unto the world by them--...

If Whitmer and the others didn't know about angelic ordinations, where did they think the authority to baptize came from? To the early church, the authority was derived from "commandments." In other words, a commandment revealed through revelations from God was the authority. The church was found by commandment to JS, the angel who administered to him concerning the gold plates also gave him commandments to translate the book, which was confirmed by "the ministering of angels", obviously alluding to the 3 witnesses. Yet they only saw one angel. Here is that generic use of the term again. So, I would argue that the use of the phrase at the beginning of the 1832 tells us little about how the authority was received.

What you think is the reception of the Melchizedek Priesthood is in reality not--" a confirmation and reception of the high Priesthood after the holy order of the son of the living God." This refers to the revelation of the high priesthood given at the June 1831 conference. It gets quite complex (you should read what I have written on this), but office of elder was given in the upper chamber of father Whitmer's house in June 1829 by revelation--the voice of God, again commanding. No wonder Whitmer and others were confused by the sudden introduction of angelic ordinations.

[William the Conqueror]

Shamans everywhere fake it? CFR, Michael Coe and Dan Vogel.

-=-=-=

William the Conqueror,

That's difficult to look at the Bible like that, then try to not look at the visions like that. This has been hashed out many times, and I'm still looking for contradictions. Please, any? Maybe we can continue one of the old threads, so as to not derail...

Maybe but my time is limited as I'm a working man... kind of like the Israelites who ate the passover sitting on the edge of their chairs with their staff in one hand, ready to move out.... sort of like Officers' Candidate School mess time.

To Dan Vogel:

You are about as popular as Jesus was in his hometown when he read from Isaiah 61 and commented on Naaman the Syrian and the widow of Zarepath. There is a saying, " The tallest tree makes the most timber."