Dan Vogel On J. Smiths Intentions?

[Dan Vogel]

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.

Well, humans can hallucinate. What would have made their testimonies more compelling would have been for the BOM to be supported by direct evidence. Since BOM historicity is on very shaky ground, I have to think that the witnesses were mistaken.

[Dan Vogel]

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?

So, the only way to be "charitable and sympathetic" to JS is to believe him? All unbelieving explanations of him are uncharitable and unsympathetic? Is that your position?

[solomarineris]

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

Your agressive defense makes sense only faitful believer who did not study BY's discouses and life.

Unfortunately for you the information is out there, you can read every word from horses mouth.

There are several websites which can display accurate history of the Church or BY wether you waste your breath or not.

[Hawkmoon]

So, the only way to be "charitable and sympathetic" to JS is to believe him? All unbelieving explanations of him are uncharitable and unsympathetic? Is that your position?

No. But of course, you didn't address his question at all. Furthermore, I noticed that you left this comment regarding how you view JS to stand uncontested.

yes Joseph was a crook, but his intentions were good.

If this is an accurate description of your view on JS can explain how this is either charitable or sympathetic?

[Hawkmoon]

Your agressive defense makes sense only faitful believer who did not study BY's discouses and life.

Unfortunately for you the information is out there, you can read every word from horses mouth.

There are several websites which can display accurate history of the Church or BY wether you waste your breath or not.

I believe we may need the Urim and Thummim to decipher this post.

[Dan Vogel]

No. But of course, you didn't address his question at all.

Actually, he was evading my questions.

Furthermore, I noticed that you left this comment regarding how you view JS to stand uncontested.

If this is an accurate description of your view on JS can explain how this is either charitable or sympathetic?

Not exactly. I believe JS believed he was inspired to use deception to fulfill his mission to convert people to Jesus. So among those who don't believe the BOM is historical, I think that's the most charitable view of JS believers can expect from non-believers, don't you? Let's see if you can answer the question that Pahoran has avoided.

[Hawkmoon]

Actually, he was evading my questions.

Not exactly. I believe JS believed he was inspired to use deception to fulfill his mission to convert people to Jesus. So among those who don't believe the BOM is historical, I think that's the most charitable view of JS believers can expect from non-believers, don't you? Let's see if you can answer the question that Pahoran has avoided.

No it isn't. The most charitable view "among those who don't believe the BOM is historical" is that he believed it to be true and did not knowingly use deception "to fufill his mission." It is far more charitable to think him misguided, deluded, or otherwise gullible than to think he was "inspired to use deception."

[charity]

Well, humans can hallucinate. What would have made their testimonies more compelling would have been for the BOM to be supported by direct evidence. Since BOM historicity is on very shaky ground, I have to think that the witnesses were mistaken.

This is not a valid way to attack the credibility of a witness! Witness testimony must be taken on its own face. You want to show that there is reasonable doubt as to the witness, it has to be within the witness and his character and testimony. Otherwise you are stuck in a loop.

[Pahoran]

Actually, he was evading my questions.

Actually, he was not. And actually, you have no basis on which to credibly claim to believe that he was.

Not exactly. I believe JS believed he was inspired to use deception to fulfill his mission to convert people to Jesus. So among those who don't believe the BOM is historical, I think that's the most charitable view of JS believers can expect from non-believers, don't you?

No, I don't.

The most "charitable" thing for a non-believer to do is to put aside their own unbelief in the possibility of actual angelic visits and accept the one uncontroversial fact of Joseph's life: that he did believe in them. And that his belief in the reality of such things was the single actuating principle and prime motivation behind all his actions.

Actually that doesn't require any "charity" at all. Just a little humility.

Let's see if you can answer the question that Pahoran has avoided.

And just what question was that? As I look back at the post to which I was replying, wherein you accused me of "evading" something, all I see is this:

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.

Not only does that not have a question mark at the end, it bears no other resemblance to any kind of interrogatory either. It is a bald, flat assertion of what you think I should do.

In the which you are wrong.

Regards,

Pahoran

[solomarineris]

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.

Well Charity,

Your mother can see a picture of killer whale, I haven't seen one either but it is so easy to prove they exist,

how about little help and showing us a picture of an Angel?

Other people see alots of things, even I saw lots of things, how I'm going to prove them?

IMHO those visions are as real as dreams and no one will dispute the veracity of the dreams, hallucinations and other type of trips that brain takes.

[charity]

Well Charity,

Your mother can see a picture of killer whale, I haven't seen one either but it is so easy to prove they exist,

how about little help and showing us a picture of an Angel?

Other people see alots of things, even I saw lots of things, how I'm going to prove them?

IMHO those visions are as real as dreams and no one will dispute the veracity of the dreams, hallucinations and other type of trips that brain takes.

I could get into the whole debate with you about perception. I taught that stuff for years. Nothing is "real" in the sense that the perception of anything occurs only within the confines of our own skulls. But do you really think you are manufacturing the whole world in your brain?

So we deal with that, and determine what has corroboration and what doesn't. There is plenty of corroboration for angels.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Well, I think I have the "evil" covered with just the members of the church!

I can't name 10 latter-day saints who know you, by the way. (Other than maybe people at FARMS, FAIR, or this board.)

Your agressive defense makes sense only faitful believer who did not study BY's discouses and life.

Unfortunately for you the information is out there, you can read every word from horses mouth.

There are several websites which can display accurate history of the Church or BY wether you waste your breath or not.

I was under the impression I should read Brigham Young's own words, but here you have encouraged me instead to rely on "several websites which can display accurate history of the Church or BY wether[sic] waste [my] breath or not."

I don't believe you are qualified to tell me I haven't studied BY's discourses and life; I've read most of the Journal of Discourses, Brigham Young's Manuscript History, the "Presidents of the Church" book of Brigham Young's teachings, and the Discourses of Brigham Young, as well as several biographical and analytical works based on Brigham Young, both "faitful"[sic] and critical. Again, solomar, bringing up these issues in response to my post again demonstrates your m.o. Call it aggressive; I just don't like dealing with blatant baloney and prefer to nip it in the bud.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Well Charity,

Your mother can see a picture of killer whale, I haven't seen one either but it is so easy to prove they exist,

how about little help and showing us a picture of an Angel?

Other people see alots of things, even I saw lots of things, how I'm going to prove them?

IMHO those visions are as real as dreams and no one will dispute the veracity of the dreams, hallucinations and other type of trips that brain takes.

The effects of a frenzied mind, right solo?

Don't forget: none of us actually exist: we are all figments of the imagination of a brain floating in a jar in some labaratory in space.

[jason e.]

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

"If you are too cheap to buy the book"

-ouch.

"I wrote on pious fraud"

-was he this the entire time or do you think other motives were weaving ion and out? what do we say about joseph "king of zion," or "general," or not allowing others to translate or use theor rods... the quotes comparing himself with Jesus and saying he did greater by keeping a church together...?

-and, if you dont mind, what are some other poular theories you have entertained or read in this regard?

thanks alot

-jason e.

[LifeOnaPlate]

"If you are too cheap to buy the book"

-ouch.

"I wrote on pious fraud"

-was he this the entire time or do you think other motives were weaving ion and out? what do we say about joseph "king of zion," or "general," or not allowing others to translate or use theor rods... the quotes comparing himself with Jesus and saying he did greater by keeping a church together...?

-and, if you dont mind, what are some other poular theories you have entertained or read in this regard?

thanks alot

-jason e.

I notice you are appealing to someone who believes openly that Joseph Smith was a fraud, and now seek his opinions on these particular quotes, about comparing himself with Jesus, etc. I wonder: have you sought any apologetic sources on thos particular quotes? Thanks.

[jason e.]

I notice you are appealing to someone who believes openly that Joseph Smith was a fraud, and now seek his opinions on these particular quotes, about comparing himself with Jesus, etc. I wonder: have you sought any apologetic sources on thos particular quotes? Thanks.

mr vogel is the sunject of my inquiry because he belives that smith was a fraud, but not just that, but he has labeled him a "pious fraud," and so the question at hand is not "was smith a fraud?" (as we know thats what mr vogel believes... and so naturally i wish to move on from the apologetical defenses of the issues i brought up). i am here adressing mr vogel, knowing that he has called him a pious fraud, step two of my question is "where does joseph "king of zion," or "general," or not allowing others to translate or use the rods... the quotes comparing himself with Jesus and saying he did greater by keeping a church together...? (as those seem less than pious).

[jason e.]

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?

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

"Angelic visitations were critical events in the Restoration; they were attested by numerous witnesses, and they brought about significant and tangible results."

-isnt that what happens when you dont eat for a day or two and then you drink free flowing wine and are told thats its consecrated unto the Lord? i think my drunk uncle and his pals saw tom petty playing hackey sack with yoko ono and the locknest monster last time he was drinking.

[jason e.]

No. But of course, you didn't address his question at all. Furthermore, I noticed that you left this comment regarding how you view JS to stand uncontested.

If this is an accurate description of your view on JS can explain how this is either charitable or sympathetic?

"explain how this is either charitable or sympathetic?"

-im sure by NOT saying he was an insane egotistical liar and charlotan (which many people do say) is how this is charitable. i for one find it quite gracious and definatally assuming the best fro smith from this perspective. and in your case this is "the worst of a few evils."

[Pahoran]

"Angelic visitations were critical events in the Restoration; they were attested by numerous witnesses, and they brought about significant and tangible results."

-isnt that what happens when you dont eat for a day or two and then you drink free flowing wine and are told thats its consecrated unto the Lord? i think my drunk uncle and his pals saw tom petty playing hackey sack with yoko ono and the locknest monster last time he was drinking.

Jason,

despite your execrable spelling, I must compliment you. You have used your space with remarkable economy. Rarely have I seen so much utter twaddle compressed into so few words.

Do you have any reason whatsoever to suppose that any of the great manifestations of the Restoration came in the way you so mockingly assume? What evidence is there for the two-day fast and the "free flowing wine?" Have you ever invited your drunk uncle and his pals to sit down and write something under the influence? Try it sometime.

Regards,

Pahoran

[jason e.]

I can't name 10 latter-day saints who know you, by the way. (Other than maybe people at FARMS, FAIR, or this board.)

I was under the impression I should read Brigham Young's own words, but here you have encouraged me instead to rely on "several websites which can display accurate history of the Church or BY wether[sic] waste [my] breath or not."

I don't believe you are qualified to tell me I haven't studied BY's discourses and life; I've read most of the Journal of Discourses, Brigham Young's Manuscript History, the "Presidents of the Church" book of Brigham Young's teachings, and the Discourses of Brigham Young, as well as several biographical and analytical works based on Brigham Young, both "faitful"[sic] and critical. Again, solomar, bringing up these issues in response to my post again demonstrates your m.o. Call it aggressive; I just don't like dealing with blatant baloney and prefer to nip it in the bud.

"I can't name 10 latter-day saints who know you, by the way. (Other than maybe people at FARMS, FAIR, or this board.) "

-really? i can (and you probabally know more lds people than i do)

"I was under the impression I should read Brigham Young's own words, but here you have encouraged me instead to rely on "several websites which can display accurate history of the Church or BY wether[sic] waste [my] breath or not.""

-are you serious here? you have done one of two things here both incriminating to you;

1- you truly dont understand that hes tal;king about sites that have by's writings

or

2- you knew that your just being a smart aguy

"I've read most of the Journal of Discourses,"

-i doubt this on the basis that i have, in the past said so many direct quoytes from there and you were like "no, so and so never said that." (plus if you really read them you probabally not be lds anymore.

[Pahoran]

"explain how this is either charitable or sympathetic?"

-im sure by NOT saying he was an insane egotistical liar and charlotan (which many people do say) is how this is charitable.

Oh. Because it is better than the uninformed rantings of a few tiny-minded bigots.

Got it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[jason e.]

Jason,

despite your execrable spelling, I must compliment you. You have used your space with remarkable economy. Rarely have I seen so much utter twaddle compressed into so few words.

Do you have any reason whatsoever to suppose that any of the great manifestations of the Restoration came in the way you so mockingly assume? What evidence is there for the two-day fast and the "free flowing wine?" Have you ever invited your drunk uncle and his pals to sit down and write something under the influence? Try it sometime.

Regards,

Pahoran

"despite your execrable spelling,"

- i know, i have no excuse for it except for the simple fact that i cant really type and i definatally cant spell. but hey God uses the foolish things of the world to shame the wise right?

"Have you ever invited your drunk uncle and his pals to sit down and write something under the influence? Try it sometime."

- sorry buddy, bad logic. the some of the best songs ive ever written were in this state (back in the old days). look at the beatles.

"Do you have any reason whatsoever to suppose that any of the great manifestations of the Restoration came in the way you so mockingly assume? What evidence is there for the two-day fast and the "free flowing wine?""

-do you seriously not know what im referencing here?

[jason e.]

Oh. Because it is better than the uninformed rantings of a few tiny-minded bigots.

Got it.

Regards,

Pahoran

and out come the ad homs!!!!

regardless of what we call them it seems you agree;

"it is better than the (insert name here, like for me it would be "people who are in love with christ and test all things and hold fast to what is true", where as you would write well, what you wrote above)"

regardless you agree and that is great.

[jason e.]

Jason,

despite your execrable spelling, I must compliment you. You have used your space with remarkable economy. Rarely have I seen so much utter twaddle compressed into so few words.

Do you have any reason whatsoever to suppose that any of the great manifestations of the Restoration came in the way you so mockingly assume? What evidence is there for the two-day fast and the "free flowing wine?" Have you ever invited your drunk uncle and his pals to sit down and write something under the influence? Try it sometime.

Regards,

Pahoran

faithful mormon Charles L. Walker was at there and recorded the following;

Sun., Nov. 21,1880.... Bro. Milo Andress ... Spoke of blessings and power of God manifested in the Kirtland Temple. Said he once asked the Prophet who [why?] he (Milo) did not feel that power that was spoken of as the power which was felt on the day of Pentecost? ... when we had fasted for 24 hours and partaken of the Lord's supper, namely a piece of bread as big as your double fist and half a pint of wine in the temple, I was there and saw the Holy Ghost descend upon the heads of those present like cloven tongues of fire ("Diary of Charles L. Walker," 1855-1902, excerpts typed, 1969, p.35).

William Harris;

In the evening, they met for the endowment. The fast was then broken by eating light wheat bread, and drinking as much wine as they saw proper. Smith knew well how to infuse the spirit which they expected to receive; so he encouraged the brethren to drink freely, telling them that the wine was consecrated, and would not make them drunk ... they began to prophecy, pronouncing blessings upon their friends, and curses upon their enemies. If I should be so unhappy as to go to the regions of the damned, I never expect to hear language more awful, or more becoming the infernal pit, than was uttered that night (Mormonism Portrayed, pp.31-32).

Mormon Apostle George A. Smith;

"... after the people had fasted all day, they sent out and got wine and bread.... they ate and drank.... some of the High Counsel of Missouri stepped into the stand, and, as righteous Noah did when he awoke from his wine, commenced to curse their enemies (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p.216).

William E. McLellin,former apostle'

"As to the endowment in Kirtland, I state positively,. Not only myself was not endowed, but no other man of the five hundred who was present - except it was with wine" (True Latter-Day Saints' Herald, XIX, 437, as cited in Hearts Made Glad, p.137).

(the previous quotes were taken from various books and websites at different times but im sure are easy to find as i have included the ref for the actuall texts)

[LifeOnaPlate]

"I can't name 10 latter-day saints who know you, by the way. (Other than maybe people at FARMS, FAIR, or this board.) "

-really? i can (and you probabally know more lds people than i do)

Birds of a feather...

-are you serious here? you have done one of two things here both incriminating to you;

1- you truly dont understand that hes tal;king about sites that have by's writings

or

2- you knew that your just being a smart aguy

Yes, I am serious here. Click the link in my sig, my blog contains some of my findings.

As for me "being a smart aguy," am I to understand you are phonetically typing with an Itallian accent?

"I've read most of the Journal of Discourses,"

-i doubt this on the basis that i have, in the past said so many direct quoytes from there and you were like "no, so and so never said that." (plus if you really read them you probabally not be lds anymore.

Wow, so the JoD would make me really leave the Church? jason e. allow me to introduce you to my friends Reason and Context.

By the way, can I ask who or what the the locknest monster is?