Dan Vogel's Critique Of Pbs Special

[William Schryver]

Dan,

We’ll obviously never reach an agreement as to the First Vision accounts, but the interpretation I provide of the three accounts is entirely consistent with what can be demonstrated regarding Joseph Smith’s understanding of the Godhead at that time. But let’s move on to your latest distortion – your interpretation of D&C 20 is terribly flawed.

Let’s try it again, and this time I will bold the important parts that you conveniently ignore.

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;

By whom was he ordained? By Peter, James, and John.

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;

By whom was Oliver ordained? By Joseph, after he had received the authority.

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;

This refers to the First Vision, when Joseph received a remission of his sins, and the interim between 1820 and 1823.

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;

This refers to Moroni’s initial visit.

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--...

Again, verses 7 – 8 refer to Moroni. Verse 10 may refer to Moroni, and also other angelic ministrants who confirmed the truth of the Book of Mormon to others – such as Mary Whitmer.

Your interpretation of D&C 20 is as flawed as your interpretation of the 1832 personal history. You assume that David Whitmer 1) would have known all the details of things that happened when he wasn’t around, and 2) that he didn’t have ulterior motives to discredit the “authority” of Joseph Smith after he (Whitmer) had become disaffected. The facts demonstrate that: 1) an understanding of the three-fold nature of the Godhead precedes the 1832 personal history, and 2) that angelic “ordinations” had clearly occurred, and had been reported as such.

[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."

I'm just expressing my opinion ... not trying to be PC.

[Dan Vogel]

Will,

As I said, this is a very complex subject and you should read what I and others (Quinn, Bushman, Cook, Prince, Porter) have written.

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;

By whom was he ordained? By Peter, James, and John.

True, PJ&J restored the keys of the apostleship according to the 1835 addition made to D&C 27. However, the most likely date of this vision was July 1830, after the church was organized on 6 April. So, how was JS and OC ordained apostles at this date? By each other at the command that was received in Fayette in June 1829. This was the eldership and, as D&C 20:38 states, an apostle is an elder. At this time, the concept of apostleship was not a church office as was elder; it was a charismatic calling. Later, after the organization of the 12 in Feb. 1835, and before publication of the D&C about September 1835, JS expanded D&C 27 to include mention of the visitation of PJ&J to restore the keys of the apostleship as an office in the church. It's more complicated, but this should do for now.

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--...

Again, verses 7 â??â?? 8 refer to Moroni. Verse 10 may refer to Moroni, and also other angelic ministrants who confirmed the truth of the Book of Mormon to others â??â?? such as Mary Whitmer.

Up to this point, you stayed within traditional interpretation; then, you changed to suit your argument. It plainly says that those who received the "ministering of angels" were to "declare it unto the world"--clearly the 3 witnesses job. What was confirmed unto them? "Which was given by inspiration, and is confirmed to others ..." That the translation was given by "inspiration." The Testimony reads: "And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us ..." This was their special duty, not Mary Whitmer's or anyone else's.

Your interpretation of D&C 20 is as flawed as your interpretation of the 1832 personal history. You assume that David Whitmer 1) would have known all the details of things that happened when he wasnâ??â??t around,

As I said, I wasn't arguing that the event didn't happen, only that Whitmer and others didn't know about these things until 1834. Whatever the reason was to reveal the visions to those in Missouri, it becomes important to discuss the possible reasons JS and OC chose that moment. And that discussion has everything to do with the creation of the documents under examination, as you have already admitted. Nevertheless, I think it's incredible that Whitmer and other leading Mormons were not told about angelic ordinations. Why weren't they mentioned in the foundational document--the Articles and Covenants of the Church of Christ (D&C 20)? Instead, the church authority is based on commandments that come through revelation. Thus Lucy Smith's account of the revelation to baptize coming through the seer stone.

and 2) that he didnâ??â??t have ulterior motives to discredit the â??â??authorityâ?â? of Joseph Smith after he (Whitmer) had become disaffected.

Are you saying Whitmer (and McLellin) lied about not knowing about angelic ordinations until 1834? He is supported by early documents; on what grounds do you accuse him of lying?

The facts demonstrate that: 1) an understanding of the three-fold nature of the Godhead precedes the 1832 personal history,

Go for it. To help direct your arguments and interpretations, I'm going to argue that the unique passages dealing with Jesus as Father and Son in the BOM should control the interpretation of Bible-based passages.

and 2) that angelic â??â??ordinationsâ?â? had clearly occurred, and had been reported as such.

Let's see your evidence. Hopefully, they are not reminiscences given more than fifty years later and tainted by JS's later accounts.

[William Schryver]

Vogel:

True, PJ&J restored the keys of the apostleship according to the 1835 addition made to D&C 27. However, the most likely date of this vision was July 1830, after the church was organized on 6 April. So, how was JS and OC ordained apostles at this date? By each other at the command that was received in Fayette in June 1829. This was the eldership and, as D&C 20:38 states, an apostle is an elder. At this time, the concept of apostleship was not a church office as was elder; it was a charismatic calling. Later, after the organization of the 12 in Feb. 1835, and before publication of the D&C about September 1835, JS expanded D&C 27 to include mention of the visitation of PJ&J to restore the keys of the apostleship as an office in the church. It's more complicated, but this should do for now.

I’m not disputing that the full organization of the church hierarchy emerged over time. That doesn’t change the fact that Joseph and Oliver were ordained by angels, and that said ordination was referenced in this 1832 personal history. They were ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood. They were made “elders.” An apostle is an elder. And within the context of this early organizational paradigm, Joseph and Oliver were serving in both capacities. Later, after the church had acquired sufficient membership from which to choose a body of twelve apostles, they were given new commandments. But it was not necessary for them to be “ordained” once again as “Elders” in the Melichizedek Priesthood. Their initial ordination empowered them to fulfil all future commandments concerning the organization of the church.

Again, verses 7 –– 8 refer to Moroni. Verse 10 may refer to Moroni, and also other angelic ministrants who confirmed the truth of the Book of Mormon to others –– such as Mary Whitmer.

Up to this point, you stayed within traditional interpretation; then, you changed to suit your argument. It plainly says that those who received the "ministering of angels" were to "declare it unto the world"--clearly the 3 witnesses job.

Yes, the three witnesses are included in my “others.” I only included Mary Whitmer to demonstrate that the ministration of angels was not limited.

I think it's incredible that Whitmer and other leading Mormons were not told about angelic ordinations.

Why? Keeping things “under wraps” until such time as he was either commanded to do otherwise, or felt it wise to do otherwise, is completely consistent with what we know about Joseph Smith. You’re reading far too much into this, in my opinion.

Why weren't they mentioned in the foundational document--the Articles and Covenants of the Church of Christ (D&C 20)? Instead, the church authority is based on commandments that come through revelation.

And yet the 1832 personal history plainly states that Joseph and Oliver were ordained to the authority they exercised. It is you who is attempting to twist the evidence to fit your agenda. Joseph records that he was ordained by angels, and thereby received the keys to bring about the organization of the church. That the full organization didn’t come to fruition until several years following the ordination is immaterial. It certainly doesn’t suggest that he retroactively concocted the story of being ordained by angels. The record proves that.

Are you saying Whitmer (and McLellin) lied about not knowing about angelic ordinations until 1834? He is supported by early documents; on what grounds do you accuse him of lying?

I am not accusing Whitmer or McLellin of “lying.” However, it is a fact that both those individuals eventually aspired to assume leadership of the church, on the grounds that Joseph Smith was a “fallen prophet.” To what extremes they were willing to go to achieve their purposes is impossible to state. But their statements at the time would lead one to believe that they had the motivation to discredit Joseph Smith’s divine authority to preside over the church. More likely, they were simply never brought into “the know” regarding everything that had been put into Joseph Smith’s hands.

The facts demonstrate that: 1) an understanding of the three-fold nature of the Godhead precedes the 1832 personal history,

Go for it. To help direct your arguments and interpretations, I'm going to argue that the unique passages dealing with Jesus as Father and Son in the BOM should control the interpretation of Bible-based passages.

1. The revision made to John 1:19 is sufficient, in my opinion, to establish the fact that Joseph Smith recognized the separate nature of the Godhead no later than early 1832. Of course, since I’m certain he did see both the Father and the Son in 1820, I would argue that his understanding predates his revision of the New Testament by over a decade.

2. You can’t limit the evidence to whatever is written in the Book of Mormon. But even if we did limit it in such a way, Latter-day Saints do not regard, for example, Mosiah 15 as being a trinitarian enunciation. Not hardly. The words of Abinadi must be understood in the context that Jesus Christ is the Father and the Son. The Father because the faithful become His sons and His daughters:

Mosiah 15

10 And now I say unto you, who shall declare his generation? Behold, I say unto you, that when his soul has been made an offering for sin he shall see his seed. And now what say ye? And who shall be his seed?

11 Behold I say unto you, that whosoever has heard the words of the prophets, yea, all the holy prophets who have prophesied concerning the coming of the Lord—I say unto you, that all those who have hearkened unto their words, and believed that the Lord would redeem his people, and have looked forward to that day for a remission of their sins, I say unto you, that these are his seed, or they are the heirs of the kingdom of God.

The Son because he was born into the flesh – the literal Son of the Eternal Father.

The Father because, in the spirit, He was Jehovah – the father of heaven and earth.

The Son because he assumed mortality.

I’m always perplexed by how many current and former LDS fail to comprehend this concept. That said, the Book of Mormon does not espouse trinitarian concepts. It is fully consistent with the reality of the First Vision, and with the later enunciations of LDS doctrine in the D&C which clearly proclaim the separateness of the Father and the Son, along with their literal physicality.

Indeed, it follows the exact paradigm that Joseph Smith describes in his First Vision:

3 Nephi 8

6 And behold, the third time they did understand the voice which they heard; and it said unto them:

7 Behold my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name—hear ye him.

[grego]

Testimony from on high to JS was Jesus. You are trying to read what isn't there.

Dan,

Are there other quotes from JS that lend to this belief? Thanks.

[Marvelous]

Dan Vogel,

I believe your summary of Richard Maow's view of JS is spot on! Maow would make a good politician, and as Lincoln said, 'There's a difference between a good politician and an honest one.' (not sic)

As to the individual who said JS's different visions could be compared to differences in the Gospels, I agree with you that it is a disengenuous statement. There are no doctrinal contradictions between the Gospels, only allegations of them! As to historical differences, see F.F. Bruce's writings. One gospel says there were two blind men who shouted at Jesus on the road to Jericho. The other gospel says there was one (Blind Bartemus). However it does not say ONLY one, it simply fails to mention the second beggar.

There are plenty of contradictions between the gospels. You rationalize them away just as TBMs rationalize away the contradictions between the First Vision accounts.

If you want examples, you can start with the accounts of Jesus' birth and early childhood, and those of his trial, crucifixion, and resurrection.

[pcarthew]

Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. He prophesied that his name would be had for good and evil and not a truer word has been spoken in all time. It is quite amazing those for and those against. What would be great is to have Joseph here so he could defend the allegations. The source of information that you quote I find interesting. You fall into the trap of many who would be historians, then present so much as factual evidence or just plain fact!! Especially when it seems to validate your own personal position. When someone records an event in time it is according to how they see it, what their ability to understand the particular situation. How do you measure this for accuracy? All of the situational circumstances and even the personality and integrity of the person themselves, so many variations, history is not a science! Indeed it takes an inordinate amount of time to review all the relevant information of a period of history. I wonder if you put positive source documents next to the negative would it make you attempt in relaying things about Joseph & LDS Church more plausible.

For someone (JS) who was such a lying rogue and deceiver; he attracted people who would display with their trek west the antithesis of what you portray him to be. As a rule those how have been born of his supposed filthy lying ways teach and strive to live under covenant:

1. The law of chastity

2. Honest in their dealing with their fellow man

3. Believe in upholding and sustaining the law

4. The family the centre of society

5. Live the word of wisdom

6. Refrain from filthy language

7. Take service within the community seriously

8. Donate 10â??s of millions of dollars a year for welfare programs

9. Serve in a lay ministry or serve with no financial rewards in auxiliaries

10. Have one of the greater percentages; of a given community demographic, of men serve in the military for the freedom of mankind.

Not really the sought of stuff that comes from magical, mystical, deluded lying type of teachings. It just at a common sense level does not compute!!

The attacks on the church may continue but the thing is it will not only continue on its way, it will continue to grow (another one of his prophecies that has come to pass). If you stand back and look at it, all the attacks and criticisms in the world have not even made one little difference. It will be as Joseph prophesied that this type of behavior will become a thing of naught. It becomes of naught because â??..no unhallowed work can stop the work from progressingâ?¦.â? It just keeps getting better!!!

[noel00]

I found both parts impressive. I think many lds need not feel that there is thats much negative. I found prayer, talks were very routinized. I think of the lamants in Psalms, no Mormon prayed like that. I liked coloured shirts and grey suits but in church you wore white shirts and dark suits, conformity conformity.

Testimony meetings consisted often of members almost bragging about what had happened that month for their family.

[Dan Vogel]

There are plenty of contradictions between the gospels. You rationalize them away just as TBMs rationalize away the contradictions between the First Vision accounts.

If you want examples, you can start with the accounts of Jesus' birth and early childhood, and those of his trial, crucifixion, and resurrection.

Contradictions in the NT are irrelevant to the First Vision. It is a fallacious way of arguing; it's ad hominal because you attack the arguer for being inconsistent or hypocritical. Thus you avoid answering the problem with the First Vision.

One expects inconsistencies between documents by different authors spread out over 50 years, based on various verbal and written sources. With the First Vision, the major accounts span 12 years, several eminating directly from JS, with others coming from sources very closeto him.

[Marvelous]

Contradictions in the NT are irrelevant to the First Vision. It is a fallacious way of arguing; it's ad hominal because you attack the arguer for being inconsistent or hypocritical. Thus you avoid answering the problem with the First Vision.

One expects inconsistencies between documents by different authors spread out over 50 years, based on various verbal and written sources. With the First Vision, the major accounts span 12 years, several eminating directly from JS, with others coming from sources very closeto him.

I agree that there are large differences between the two and that inconsistencies between the NT gospels are far easier to understand than those between the First Vision accounts, for the reasons you cite. I also agree that one has nothing directly to do with the other. The fact that the NT gospels contradict each other doesn't mean the First Vision accounts do.

My intent was to challenge the assertion of the earlier post and to point out the similarity in attitude between the two apologetic groups. Each is so intent of defending their faith that they rationalize away what is obvious to the impartial observer.

I don't know whether JS' godhead concept evolved, although I suspect it did. What I do know is that the First Vision accounts are dissimilar enough to arouse suspicion. The various explanations for these discrepancies are tortured. If this is the seminal event in Church history, why was JS not more careful in relating it? I once challenged any board apologist to present these accounts to a unbiased friend for his opinion. To my knowledge, no one took me up on it.

For Will and others: Why did the 1838 account not mention angels? I find this odd. It's the most complete account, yet it overlooks the angels mentioned in an earlier account.

[William Schryver]

Marvelous:

For Will and others: Why did the 1838 account not mention angels? I find this odd. It's the most complete account, yet it overlooks the angels mentioned in an earlier account.

I've concluded that it was deliberately designed that way in order to give people of little faith some trivial excuse to leave the church and thereby save the rest of us the trouble of having to home teach them every month.

[Marvelous]

Marvelous:

I've concluded that it was deliberately designed that way in order to give people of little faith some trivial excuse to leave the church and thereby save the rest of us the trouble of having to home teach them every month.

That's it? I'm disappointed. You are so energetic in defending the proposition that there are no discrepancies, and yet you won't address this one?

For the record, home teachers visit me and my family every month.

[William Schryver]

Marvelous:

You are so energetic in defending the proposition that there are no discrepancies, and yet you won't address this one?

I have never argued that there are no discrepancies. That would be an untenable argument. My contention is that the discrepancies do not signify an evolution of the account of the event itself, and that the essential elements of the First Vision can be derived from several other historical sources, in addition to the three ostensibly "formal" accounts thereof.

[Zakuska]

Contradictions in the NT are irrelevant to the First Vision. It is a fallacious way of arguing; it's ad hominal because you attack the arguer for being inconsistent or hypocritical. Thus you avoid answering the problem with the First Vision.

One expects inconsistencies between documents by different authors spread out over 50 years, based on various verbal and written sources. With the First Vision, the major accounts span 12 years, several eminating directly from JS, with others coming from sources very closeto him.

Dan, why are you making Mountians out of Mole hills?

1) there are only two direct accounts by JS himself, In his hand writing. (I heard from the second counselor in the Bishopric last night that the official account we have now was mostly put together by JSs Mother, I have yet to confirm that)

2) the game of telephone is the Game of Telephone, no matter what day and age its played in.

[William Schryver]

Dan, why are you making Mountians out of Mole hills?

1) there are only two direct accounts by JS himself, In his hand writing. (I heard from the second counselor in the Bishopric last night that the official account we have now was mostly put together by JSs Mother, I have yet to confirm that)

2) the game of telephone is the Game of Telephone, no matter what day and age its played in.

The second counselor is mistaken.

[William the Conqueror]

There are plenty of contradictions between the gospels. You rationalize them away just as TBMs rationalize away the contradictions between the First Vision accounts.

If you want examples, you can start with the accounts of Jesus' birth and early childhood, and those of his trial, crucifixion, and resurrection.

Maybe in the Joseph Smith Translation there are contradictions, but not in the others (except the NWT).