Joseph And Dan Vogel

[Lamanite]

Bringing this from another thread.

QUOTE(Lamanite @ Oct 17 2007, 10:05 PM)

QUOTE

PS We've never talked before but I was wondering how you felt when Richard Bushman suggested you might be, "Joseph's chief antagonist these days" (One the road with Joseph Smith, pg 120) I think he also said you knew more about Joseph than anyone else. (Couldn't find the quote) Thanks for the response on Olives.

Big UP

Sione

Well, I guess he could say worse things about me.

I think there are others who know more about various aspects of JS's life than I do. I'm sure the Joseph Smith project folks are more knowledgable than I am about JS.

Not having read your book I can't comment as to the truthfulness of Bushman's "antagonist" statement. So I'm wondering if you could tell me if he is accurate in this assessment or not? Thanks

[Lamanite]

bump

also, has anyone read Dan's book on JS?

[Dan Vogel]

Bringing this from another thread.

Not having read your book I can't comment as to the truthfulness of Bushman's "antagonist" statement. So I'm wondering if you could tell me if he is accurate in this assessment or not? Thanks

Yes, I'm a critic of JS, but I try to be fair.

[Lamanite]

I'm wondering what a TBM could gain from reading your book? I know it's hard to guage people's motives but I can assure you I'm gunuinely interested in learning about and understanding the "real" Joseph, at least as much as historical evidence allows. I'm not trying to draw you into an arguement of trap of some kind.

In your book, do you attach 'naturalistic' explainations to the narrative, or do you merely present fact with historical contex?

Is it organized by subject or chronologically?

What was the driving motivation and purpose for writing this book?

Yes, I'm a critic of JS, but I try to be fair.

what does fair mean? (Inasmuch as it pertains to your book.)

[cinepro]

I'm wondering what a TBM could gain from reading your book? I know it's hard to guage people's motives but I can assure you I'm gunuinely interested in learning about and understanding the "real" Joseph, at least as much as historical evidence allows. I'm not trying to draw you into an arguement of trap of some kind.

In your book, do you attach 'naturalistic' explainations to the narrative, or do you merely present fact with historical contex?

Is it organized by subject or chronologically?

What was the driving motivation and purpose for writing this book?

what does fair mean? (Inasmuch as it pertains to your book.)

Obviously Dan can best answer your questions, but I read the book a few years ago, so let me share my impressions.

First, the book takes a strongly pro-naturalistic stance. Unfortunately, there were times when I felt like the evidence was getting stretched a little too thin, and didn't support the claim at hand. A large chunk of the book also covers the Book of Mormon in detail, with the Book of Mormon narrative getting tied into Joseph's life experience and contemporary culture, so this portion reads more like a step-by-step explanation for where the Book of Mormon came from and less like a "bio" of Joseph.

There is a lot of information that is really interesting (but not necessarily faith promoting) about Joseph and his life. If you are worried less about protecting your faith, and more about getting as much info about Joseph as possible, then it is worth a read. But I hope it's not the last word on the subject.

[Dan Vogel]

I'm wondering what a TBM could gain from reading your book? I know it's hard to guage people's motives but I can assure you I'm gunuinely interested in learning about and understanding the "real" Joseph, at least as much as historical evidence allows. I'm not trying to draw you into an arguement of trap of some kind.

In your book, do you attach 'naturalistic' explainations to the narrative, or do you merely present fact with historical contex?

Is it organized by subject or chronologically?

What was the driving motivation and purpose for writing this book?

what does fair mean? (Inasmuch as it pertains to your book.)

Fair means that at times I disagree with harsher critics of JS. For example, I believe JS was deceptive about BOM origins, but for good purposes; that he had good motives and a sincere faith; that he believed himself to be a prophet, and that he was at times inspired, including in his use of deception. I think that amoung JS's critics, this is the most charitable view of him around.

[William the Conqueror]

Fair means that at times I disagree with harsher critics of JS. For example, I believe JS was deceptive about BOM origins, but for good purposes; that he had good motives and a sincere faith; that he believed himself to be a prophet, and that he was at times inspired, including in his use of deception. I think that amoung JS's critics, this is the most charitable view of him around.

Is your view of JS about the same as Grant Palmer's?

[why me]

You can read some reviews of Dan' book on the FAIR website. Unfortunately, I cannot paste from that site or I would. Just go to http://www.fairlds.org and type Dan Vogel into the search. Eventually you will find some reviews.

Now Dan can of course disagree with me but according to one reviewer Dan claims that the book of mormon was written by JS through a steady 'stream of consciousness'. No manuscript, which would make JS extemely gifted.

Dan believes that JS was a pious fraud.

[Lamanite]

Fair means that at times I disagree with harsher critics of JS. For example, I believe JS was deceptive about BOM origins, but for good purposes; that he had good motives and a sincere faith; that he believed himself to be a prophet, and that he was at times inspired, including in his use of deception. I think that amoung JS's critics, this is the most charitable view of him around.

You glossed over my other questions. What motivated you to write the book, etc? Also, that's a pretty lame definition of fair, in that it's based on other people?

[Dan Vogel]

Is your view of JS about the same as Grant Palmer's?

No, his is close to mine.

[BishopRic]

No, his is close to mine.

Good one!

(Personally, I like them both...)

[cinepro]

Also, that's a pretty lame definition of fair, in that it's based on other people?

If you're talking about peoples' views of other people, what would you expect it to be based on? How can you have an objective standard for the "fairness" of a person's opinion of another person?

[Dan Vogel]

You glossed over my other questions. What motivated you to write the book, etc? Also, that's a pretty lame definition of fair, in that it's based on other people?

I don't know what my motivations are exactly. I write because I need to.

You asked for my definition of fair. Let's hear yours. On what basis would you consider a biography about JS from a non-believer fair?

[LifeOnaPlate]

I don't know what my motivations are exactly. I write because I need to.

You asked for my definition of fair. Let's hear yours. On what basis would you consider a biography about JS from a non-believer fair?

Yours may be one of the fairest non-believing assessments; though Harold Bloom may have you beat. Maybe not, though. It doesn't really matter, though.

[Lee]

Fair means that at times I disagree with harsher critics of JS. For example, I believe JS was deceptive about BOM origins, but for good purposes; that he had good motives and a sincere faith; that he believed himself to be a prophet, and that he was at times inspired, including in his use of deception. I think that amoung JS's critics, this is the most charitable view of him around.

As in the right thing for the wrong reasons?

[why me]

I think that Dan got it from both sides: the critics and the apologists. For the critics, many could not buy into his theory. I don't think that it was warmly welcomed by the Rigdonites. The Rigdonites bet on Sidney lifting the spaulding manuscript, rewriting it to fit Sidney's vision of the world and selling the fraud to JS, not for money but for power. Dan comes along with a steady stream of consciousness theory and slaps the Rigdonites in the face.

And so what the critics do have are two theories that seem to cancel the other out. So far so good. Dan's theory does not seem popular on the exboards. Many old fashioned exers still cling to JS plagarizing the book from several sources deep in study and research in some barn or library. How can I put it more simply: their picture of JS is that of Karl Marx writing Das Kapital in the London Library reading room.

And so the critics are divided and Dan's new theory divided them more. And of course for the apologists, they had one more theory to dubunk.

<<<eyes wide open...

[Lamanite]

I don't know what my motivations are exactly. I write because I need to.

You asked for my definition of fair. Let's hear yours. On what basis would you consider a biography about JS from a non-believer fair?

To me, fair seems almost like a euphemism for the "truth". When it comes to subjective material, I guess fair to me would be to present a comprehensive portrait of the individual without editorializing. I realize this is an almost impossible standard to live up to. Also, it may have been your intention from the outset to comment on historical information and lead the reader to certain conclusions. If it makes any difference, I think Sheri Dew as a biographer is totally unfair to her subjects. It seems like if the publisher is Deseret Book I can chalk it up to a laudatory cheerleading session.

Big UP!

[Dan Vogel]

As in the right thing for the wrong reasons?

I do no want to make conclusions about "right" and "wrong"; that's for each person to decide. All that concerns me is what JS thought he was doing. In using deception, JS thought he was doing the right thing to get the right result. I think he makes this clear in his 1842 letter to Nancy Rigdon: that which is wrong under one circumstance can be and often is right under another ... whatever God commands to do is right, no matter what it is (paraphrased from memory here).

[Dan Vogel]

To me, fair seems almost like a euphemism for the "truth". When it comes to subjective material, I guess fair to me would be to present a comprehensive portrait of the individual without editorializing. I realize this is an almost impossible standard to live up to. Also, it may have been your intention from the outset to comment on historical information and lead the reader to certain conclusions. If it makes any difference, I think Sheri Dew as a biographer is totally unfair to her subjects. It seems like if the publisher is Deseret Book I can chalk it up to a laudatory cheerleading session.

Big UP!

No one knows what the truth is, because historical documents don't lead to it. It's all about interpretation. The goal is to have the most defensible interpretation among other competing interpretations. That's the best one can expect.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I do no want to make conclusions about "right" and "wrong"; that's for each person to decide. All that concerns me is what JS thought he was doing. In using deception, JS thought he was doing the right thing to get the right result. I think he makes this clear in his 1842 letter to Nancy Rigdon: that which is wrong under one circumstance can be and often is right under another ... whatever God commands to do is right, no matter what it is (paraphrased from memory here).

He also warned that doing something in the name of God can be a very damning thing if you're wrong; and cautioned against such.