Jump to content

Dan Vogel On J. Smiths Intentions?


jason e.

Recommended Posts

The question I present is this, of those who have found many of smiths teachings/actions to be not reliable what do they think was really happening? was he deceived himself? was he pious? was he looking to get rich and then ended up really believing he himself was a prophet? did he start just to unite his famiy and it evolved into something further...?

This seems like such a difficult subject and i dont know how to approach it. i forget what broadie said, and i think i remeber vogel saying... actually i forget what he (you) said.

So to Mr. Vogel, as well as anyone else who has read an opinion of Josephs motives, or anyone who has an opinion themselves, i would be interested to hear what you think.

mahalo

jason e.

p.s. vlady won the home run derby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment

So to Mr. Vpgel as well as anyone else who has read an opinion of Josephs motives or anyone who has an opinio themselves i would be interested to hear what you think.

Hold on while I go and get my crystal ball out of attic storage..... :P

Bernard

Link to comment

When I saw the thread title, I wondered if it might be discussing or interpreting what Dan had to say on the subject. In which case, my first reaction was, whatever disagreements I might have with him (plenty) I'd rather let Dan speak for himself.

Then I read the OP and realised that that's just what you are inviting him to do. Which is fair enough.

But then another thought struck me: by so doing we are being kinder to Dan and his fellows than they are to Joseph, aren't we?

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

The question I present is this, of those who have found many of smiths teachings/actions to be not reliable what do they think was really happening? was he deceived himself? was he pious? was he looking to get rich and then ended up really believing he himself was a prophet? did he start just to unite his famiy and it evolved into something further...?

This seems like such a difficult subject and i dont know how to approach it. i forget what broadie said, and i think i remeber vogel saying... actually i forget what he (you) said.

So to Mr. Vogel, as well as anyone else who has read an opinion of Josephs motives, or anyone who has an opinion themselves, i would be interested to hear what you think.

mahalo

jason e.

p.s. vlady won the home run derby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I believe that he was a complex fellow -- that now and then the Lord made good use of him,

but not always, and not generally because of JS's great piety or his God-fearing righteousness.

I believe he was also a very personable fellow -- extremely charismatic and charming. But at

heart insecure and perhaps even frightened of the possibility of others exercising control over

him. I'd guess that as far back as his early childhood he was seeking ways to protect and

preserve himself from seeming hostile forces in his life.

Do I think he always told the truth? -- No.

Do I think he will judge my soul on the last day? -- No.

Do I think he is now mingling with gods and planning for his brethren? -- No.

Do I think that God loves me any more than He loves Joe Smith? -- No again.

Uncle Dale

Link to comment

Do I think he always told the truth? -- No.

Do I think he will judge my soul on the last day? -- No.

Do I think he is now mingling with gods and planning for his brethren? -- No.

Do I think that God loves me any more than He loves Joe Smith? -- No again.

Uncle Dale

Can I add one more "No" Unck?

Do I think Dan V's name will be had for good and evil among all nations/people? -- No.

Link to comment

I believe that he was a complex fellow -- that now and then the Lord made good use of him,

but not always, and not generally because of JS's great piety or his God-fearing righteousness.

I believe he was also a very personable fellow -- extremely charismatic and charming. But at

heart insecure and perhaps even frightened of the possibility of others exercising control over

him. I'd guess that as far back as his early childhood he was seeking ways to protect and

preserve himself from seeming hostile forces in his life.

Do I think he always told the truth? -- No.

Do I think he will judge my soul on the last day? -- No.

Do I think he is now mingling with gods and planning for his brethren? -- No.

Do I think that God loves me any more than He loves Joe Smith? -- No again.

Uncle Dale

Why would JS judge your soul? Common knowledge that Christ is the only judge besides our personal judgments on ourselves. JS would be more of a witness, if he were to be involved at all.

Link to comment

Why would JS judge your soul? Common knowledge that Christ is the only judge besides our personal judgments on ourselves. JS would be more of a witness, if he were to be involved at all.

I'm surprised that you forgot BY's famous saying; " No one will inherit keys of Lord's Kingdom, without approval of JS". Or you think he didn't speak as Prophet?

Link to comment

I'm surprised that you forgot BY's famous saying; " No one will inherit keys of Lord's Kingdom, without approval of JS". Or you think he didn't speak as Prophet?

Let's give Joseph and Brigham a little Biblical backdrop, shall we?

1 Cor. 6:2-33.

Thanks!

Also, Unkie Dale already started this same thread a few days ago.

Link to comment

I'm surprised that you forgot BY's famous saying; " No one will inherit keys of Lord's Kingdom, without approval of JS". Or you think he didn't speak as Prophet?

I'm suprised you stretched the truth telling us that statement was famous. Brigham young never elaborated on that statement, and it was never set down as a first class revelation from God. It was never set down in lessons manuals during the next 100 years, and it was never printed in pamphlets. In fact it is quite an obscure little statement, that most people who have no interest in history don't know about. Talking about stretching the truth. Perhaps you should practice telling the truth when you post on message boards such as this one! :P

It is simply a statement that Brigham Young is personally responsible for, to explain or interpret. However I am really surprised that a pseudo scholar like yourself failed to take into account the LDS interpretation of that statement. However maybe I shouldn't be surprised, since folks of your ilk generally fail to state both sides of the story in your rush to mock and ridicule.

Link to comment

When people use quotes that 99% of LDS members have never heard before in their lives to tell us what we believe it just shows how ignorant we Mormons are of our core beliefs.

The only way Mormons can find out what they believe is by hearing the real gospel of Joseph Smith by conversing with the real Christians who not only know LDS beliefs better than the regular Church members, but better than the people who they quote!

Link to comment

I'm suprised you stretched the truth telling us that statement was famous. Brigham young never elaborated on that statement, and it was never set down as a first class revelation from God. It was never set down in lessons manuals during the next 100 years, and it was never printed in pamphlets. In fact it is quite an obscure little statement, that most people who have no interest in history don't know about. Talking about stretching the truth. Perhaps you should practice telling the truth when you post on message boards such as this one! :P

It is simply a statement that Brigham Young is personally responsible for, to explain or interpret. However I am really surprised that a pseudo scholar like yourself failed to take into account the LDS interpretation of that statement. However maybe I shouldn't be surprised, since folks of your ilk generally fail to state both sides of the story in your rush to mock and ridicule.

I'm not surpried. This is solomarineris's m.o.

Link to comment

When people use quotes that 99% of LDS members have never heard before in their lives to tell us what we believe it just shows how ignorant we Mormons are of our core beliefs.

The only way Mormons can find out what they believe is by hearing the real gospel of Joseph Smith by conversing with the real Christians who not only know LDS beliefs better than the regular Church members, but better than the people who they quote!

I call this "the Tanner method."

Shadow or reality? Is Mormonism the shadow, or is the Tanner version the shadow?

Link to comment

When considering what Dan Vogel says, remember his method. He decided that there is no such thing as supernatural events. No visions. No angels. No revelations.

When I was teaching, I used to give students the strategy to do well on multiple choice tests. A five option multiple choice quiz gives you a 20% chance of getting the right answer by guessing. If you haven't a clue as to what the right option is, start eliminating the wrong answers. Then you whittle down the odds. If you can get rid of 3 options and are down to choosing between 2, that has boosted the odds to 50%.

However, if you eliminate the correct option, then your chance of being wrong is 100%. Dan Vogel eliminated the right answer from consideration. No matter what he comes up with he is wrong.

Link to comment

Dan has already written several books about the issues; why should he come and expound all his theories again when instead you can go buy and read his books?

If Danno isn't paying you commissions, he should be, LOaP.

USU "Use the Library, Luke" 78

Link to comment

Use the Library, Luke...

Did that -- am half-way through the Nekronomikon and Oahspe as we speak.

Crusty's coming!

I know he's coming!

He'll come here and visit us, and then you'll see!!

Uncle "Crusty IS coming! Crusty Vogel IS Coming!" Dale

Link to comment

Question: why are we dogpiling on Mr. Vogel, when he hasn't even posted in this thread yet?

Granted that if and when he does, if he says something I find objectionable, I will not hold back from telling him so; but why does it seem that we are putting the boot into Dan, not for anything he's posted, but just because he's Dan?

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment
Question: why are we dogpiling on Mr. Vogel, when he hasn't even posted in this thread yet?

Granted that if and when he does, if he says something I find objectionable, I will not hold back from telling him so; but why does it seem that we are putting the boot into Dan, not for anything he's posted, but just because he's Dan?

Okay, this feels a little weird, but let me observe that Dan Vogel has left written evidence of his opinions in more than one place. This forum is an inherently asynchronous medium, so making arguments for and against his opinions need not wait until he has thrown out the ceremonial first pitch. It is, of course, a privilege to be able to cross-examine him occasionally here, a privilege we are denied in the case of Joseph Smith, but that doesn't mean that we can't deal with what evidence we have. As a scholar I greatly admire once said, "People are still trying to explain Joseph Smith. That is as it should be, for no man who claims as much as he did should go unchallenged."

Or would that be unkind?

Link to comment

The question I present is this, of those who have found many of smiths teachings/actions to be not reliable what do they think was really happening? was he deceived himself? was he pious? was he looking to get rich and then ended up really believing he himself was a prophet? did he start just to unite his famiy and it evolved into something further...?

This seems like such a difficult subject and i dont know how to approach it. i forget what broadie said, and i think i remeber vogel saying... actually i forget what he (you) said.

So to Mr. Vogel, as well as anyone else who has read an opinion of Josephs motives, or anyone who has an opinion themselves, i would be interested to hear what you think.

mahalo

jason e.

p.s. vlady won the home run derby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you are too cheap to buy the book, try the link below for an old essay I wrote on pious fraud:

"`The Prophet Puzzle' Revisited."

http://www.lds-mormon.com/vogel.shtml

The most obvious and direct solution to Shipps' prophet puzzle is to suggest that Smith was what might be termed a pious fraud, someone who deceives to achieve holy objectives. This was the operating thesis of Lutheran minister Robert N. Hullinger's 1980 book, Mormon Answer to Skepticism, Why Joseph Smith Wrote the Book of Mormon. Responding to Shipps' complaint that the Book of Mormon "has by and large been neglected as a source which might facilitate a better understanding of Joseph Smith's early career," Hullinger attempted to discover Smith's motives for writing the book through an examination of the book's rhetoric, and concluded that "Joseph Smith . . . regarded himself as [a] defender of God." "Even if one believes that Joseph Smith was at best a scoundrel," Hullinger observed, "one still must account for the Book of Mormon." Indeed, the book's clearly religious appeal--its defense of God, Christ, and spiritual gifts, and its call to repentance--argues strongly against the presumption that Smith's motives were malicious or completely self-serving.
Link to comment

When I saw the thread title, I wondered if it might be discussing or interpreting what Dan had to say on the subject. In which case, my first reaction was, whatever disagreements I might have with him (plenty) I'd rather let Dan speak for himself.

Then I read the OP and realised that that's just what you are inviting him to do. Which is fair enough.

But then another thought struck me: by so doing we are being kinder to Dan and his fellows than they are to Joseph, aren't we?

Regards,

Pahoran

Since it's unrealistic to expect everyone to believe JS's claims, I think you should acknowledge and welcome a view that is as charitable and sympathetic towards JS as mine.

Link to comment
Okay, this feels a little weird, but let me observe that Dan Vogel has left written evidence of his opinions in more than one place. This forum is an inherently asynchronous medium, so making arguments for and against his opinions need not wait until he has thrown out the ceremonial first pitch. It is, of course, a privilege to be able to cross-examine him occasionally here, a privilege we are denied in the case of Joseph Smith, but that doesn't mean that we can't deal with what evidence we have. As a scholar I greatly admire once said, "People are still trying to explain Joseph Smith. That is as it should be, for no man who claims as much as he did should go unchallenged."

Or would that be unkind?

Fair enough; but Jason did invite Dan to respond, and he's chosen not to as yet. So maybe, following your hint, someone could post something from Dan's voluminous writings and we could use that as the starting point for some discussion. If we're going to kick him around, then let's have something more substantive than his name to kick at.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

When considering what Dan Vogel says, remember his method. He decided that there is no such thing as supernatural events. No visions. No angels. No revelations.

When I was teaching, I used to give students the strategy to do well on multiple choice tests. A five option multiple choice quiz gives you a 20% chance of getting the right answer by guessing. If you haven't a clue as to what the right option is, start eliminating the wrong answers. Then you whittle down the odds. If you can get rid of 3 options and are down to choosing between 2, that has boosted the odds to 50%.

However, if you eliminate the correct option, then your chance of being wrong is 100%. Dan Vogel eliminated the right answer from consideration. No matter what he comes up with he is wrong.

Now, all you have to do is prove there are angels.

Link to comment
Since it's unrealistic to expect everyone to believe JS's claims, I think you should acknowledge and welcome a view that is as charitable and sympathetic towards JS as mine.

Dan,

thank you for participating.

Unfortunately, once all the window-dressing is cleared away, your "charitable and sympathetic" view seems to boil down to this: yes Joseph was a crook, but his intentions were good.

Or am I wrong in that understanding?

Now, all you have to do is prove there are angels.

Well no, she doesn't.

Angelic visitations were critical events in the Restoration; they were attested by numerous witnesses, and they brought about significant and tangible results. Therefore, if you choose to merely discount them, you run the risk of excluding something without which early Mormonism cannot be understood. It is not merely that you treat those things as outside the realm of scholarly inquiry, but you start from the assumption that they did not and could not happen. Put another way, you fail to investigate the Church's truth claims, not because they are out of scope, but because you start by dismissing them without question.

Can't you see how fundamentally flawed your work must be from an LDS standpoint?

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

Now, all you have to do is prove there are angels.

That has been proven. Multiple witnesses. Not everyone has to observe an event or phenomenon for it to be proven. My mother has never seen a killer whale. I have. They exist. I have never seen an angel. But other people have seen angels. They exist.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...