Pious Fraud

[Dan Vogel]

Beowulf,

After all this time, yes, I still do not see how D&C 19 is a prooftext for Joseph being able to engage in pious deception.

I have learned a lot about D&C 19 along the way, making it all a useful exercise.

But no, I do not see the relevance to pious deception

Then, you must have missed my comment to Calmoraih that D&C 19 does not describe pious deception, it is a symptom of it.

While it doesn

[Calm]

Since I disagree that D&C 19 is actually a symptom of pious deception, how can I explain this to him? If you want me to explain where I think you went wrong with the assumptions that you brought to it, he can see that in what I've said.

[Dan Vogel]

Cal,

It seems that you think knowledge of the misconception likely to occur is enough for intent to deceive. I do not. I believe one of the primary motives needs to be for the misconception to occur for it to qualify for intent (which is what I see lacking in D&C 19). I am trying to figure out what your 'line in the sand' is on this issue.

If my analysis is correct, then the phrase

[beastie]

Ben,

I would like to know if you have at least read Vogel's book in order to help me determine whether to continue this conversation.

[Dan Vogel]

Ben,

Sorry I haven

[William the Conqueror]

Cal,

It seems that you think knowledge of the misconception likely to occur is enough for intent to deceive. I do not. I believe one of the primary motives needs to be for the misconception to occur for it to qualify for intent (which is what I see lacking in D&C 19).

If my analysis is correct, then the phrase

[Dan Vogel]

Ben,

I am not attempting to force the conversation. What I am trying to do is introduce the fact that the text is far more complex than Vogel presents itself. Vogel largely ignores the specific model of a prophet presented in the early parts of the Book of Mormon - a model which seems to be based on a particular biblical paradigm. This, of course, is relatively meaningless in the question of authenticity since the biblical material was available to a 19th century author. But what it does do is call into question Dan's picture of how Joseph Smith saw himself as a prophet. And this is highly significant to the discussion. The Book of Mormon model is based on Moses. It quotes the Old Testament in reference to Moses. It alludes to passages about Moses. It contains several very lengthy literary allusions to Old Testament texts. Yet, Joseph, outside of the Book of Mormon does not appeal to Mosaic tradition in anywhere near the same fashion. In many ways, Joseph sees himself as a prophet and seer in much the same way as other contemporary individuals who also claimed such a distinction (and there were many - I have gathered several late 18th century and early 19th century accounts).

You begin by accusing me of being too simplistic, then you immediately try to force the BofM prophets and JS into a Moses mold. There are in the BofM in fact several prophetic exemplars: Joseph, the interpreter of dreams, which is the role that Nephi plays; Lehi

[Dan Vogel]

Cal,

Since I disagree that D&C 19 is actually a symptom of pious deception, how can I explain this to him? If you want me to explain where I think you went wrong with the assumptions that you brought to it, he can see that in what I've said.

Tricky, but not what I said. My point was: unlike Beowulf, you understand the implications of my interpretation well enough to contend against them. I did not imply that you agreed.

To imply that interpreters should have no assumptions when they approach texts is a bit na

[Benjamin McGuire]

Beastie asks:

I would like to know if you have at least read Vogel's book in order to help me determine whether to continue this conversation.

Yes. I have.

Ben

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan Vogel writes:

This reminds me of James Randi

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan Vogel writes:

You begin by accusing me of being too simplistic, then you immediately try to force the BofM prophets and JS into a Moses mold. There are in the BofM in fact several prophetic exemplars: Joseph, the interpreter of dreams, which is the role that Nephi plays; Lehi

[Calm]

William, I am more interested in Mr. Vogel's and Ben's conversation than repeating what I've already said. You'll have to be satisfied with rereading my comments on intent and to what I believe "might work" is referrring. Sorry. I've done my quota of thinking for the month and am going back to as flippant as I can make it mode.

[William the Conqueror]

William, I am more interested in Mr. Vogel's and Ben's conversation than repeating what I've already said. You'll have to be satisfied with rereading my comments on intent and to what I believe "might work" is referrring. Sorry. I've done my quota of thinking for the month and am going back to as flippant as I can make it mode.

Flippant mode noted.

[Beowulf]

Dan Vogel wrote:

Beowulf,

I should ask for clarification, because it

[beastie]

Here are just two examples of words from the Lord that it is our fault we misunderstand as actually referring to an eternal, time wise, damnation in hell.

Mosiah 2:33

33 For behold, there is a wo pronounced upon him who listeth to obey that spirit; for if he listeth to obey him, and remaineth and dieth in his sins, the same drinketh damnation to his own soul; for he receiveth for his wages an everlasting punishment, having transgressed the law of God contrary to his own knowledge.

Mosiah 3:25

25 And if they be evil they are consigned to an awful view of their own guilt and abominations, which doth cause them to shrink from the presence of the Lord into a state of misery and endless torment, from whence they can no more return; therefore they have drunk damnation to their own souls.

26 Therefore, they have drunk out of the cup of the wrath of God, which justice could no more deny unto them than it could deny that Adam should fall because of his partaking of the forbidden fruit; therefore, mercy could have claim on them no more forever.

27 And their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flames are unquenchable, and whose smoke ascendeth up forever and ever. Thus hath the Lord commanded me. Amen.

Silly humans. God speaks clearly, we're just stupid. I mean, what reasonable person wouldn't read those words and think to themselves, well, gee, eternal, endless, forever don't really mean eternal, endless, and forever???? They mean something else, like, say, a descriptor for God, which just means this is God's punishment, not really eternal, endless and forever punishment.

God has the greatest job. He gets to make the biggest blunders and still has millions of people eager to write his alibis and to take on his "sin" by assigning the fault always to themselves instead of God. (who apparently conveys his thoughts as poorly as regular old stupid humans)

[Beowulf]

Have it your way.

But after seeing those verses in Mosiah, JS asked for clarification, and got DC19.

[osirica]

Have it your way.

But after seeing those verses in Mosiah, JS asked for clarification, and got DC19.

JS wanted to redo the verses, so he wrote DC19. He got no clarification from God, any more than Muhammad wanted to retell the story of Moses. He did not get his version from God either.

[beastie]

But after seeing those verses in Mosiah, JS asked for clarification, and got DC19

So is God either too dull witted to realize how people would normally interpret those words, or did he realize fully how people would interpret those words, and for some reason, still let them stand all those years before JS was around to ask about it? And do you think that Benjamin didn't ask God to inspire his words?

[Beowulf]

You, too, can "have it your way" .

Or you can read the D&C (the whole thing) in the way that JS presented it as: A series of questions about scripture, or the issues of the day. And God's response to same.

A truly amazing collection.

Beowulf

[Beowulf]

Beastie: You are forgetting the third possibility.

That Benjamin's hearers understood him very well, and only us moderns, stilted in centuries of apostacy and drifting from the true Gospel, needed further clarification to get it right.

Beowulf

[beastie]

That Benjamin's hearers understood him very well, and only us moderns, stilted in centuries of apostacy and drifting from the true Gospel, needed further clarification to get it right.

I see. So if you're not mired in apostasy and drifting from the True Gospel, you understand that this sentence:

And their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flames are unquenchable, and whose smoke ascendeth up forever and ever -

really has nothing to do with a torment that lasts forever.

I can only conclude that the closer you are to the true gospel the more you are able to change the meanings of words as needed.

BTW, you do remember that the BoM was written specifically for us apostate mired idiots?

[Dan Vogel]

Beowulf,

But after seeing those verses in Mosiah, JS asked for clarification, and got DC19.

Mosiah dictated in early April 1829; D&C 19 dictated March 1830. Answer comes a year later?

Joseph Knight, Sr.

[Calm]

I am curious, Mr. Vogel, if you accept or rather deal much with multiple cause/triggers for historical events in your work much, or if you primarily focus on one aspect.

Not necessarily in this case, I don't know enough to see if the idea that Joseph came to the Lord with more than one thing on his mind has merit. I gathered you see 19 as reassurance for Harris with his Universalist stance as well as the 'revelation' about God's deception in Joseph's mind, but the second you consider an unconscious trigger, if I understand you correctly so neither Joseph nor Martin came to that section with that directly in mind.

Since it was claimed that many of the truly doctrinal sections of the D&C came as a result of Joseph and others looking for more information on doctrinal issues, I could easily accept that Joseph and Martin might have approached this prayer with something more than just money and how to get it on one's mind.

A favour if you will--I will be teaching D&C to 15-16 years next year in SS, my worst subject. I have vigorously avoided any history for myself past 1000 AD and especially Church History once the Reformation got started. (One exception: Canadian History--I got fascinated by it because of the significant differences between who were the agressors and who won the wars from north of the border, my conclusion is that the Canadian history was more realistic overall.) I'm quite the opposite of a history buff, but I have managed to pick up at least a desire (and a surprisingly amount of info since I pay attention) to treat it with respect from those around me that absolutely love it and I would like to encourage that in my students as much as possible. I am wondering what books you would recommend; knowing my very strict budget these days (can't get much wiggle room when it comes to medical expenses), I hope to manage one and will be very happy if it goes up to two. So on the topic of the D&C and the church history surrounding that in as much detail as possible, what book would you recommend that would be worth my reading, but have some stuff in it that would be enjoyable for 15-16 year old.

Would love it if anyone else would chip in their thoughts as well. I'm thinking I've got to at least get Bushman's Witness book. I have several D&C Commentary, but not as much history is given with them to make me feel I can really see the overall context of the life that the revelations then added to. I think I'll start a new thread on this tomorrow.

[Dan Vogel]

Wade,

At the end of my previous post I clearly indicated that I wasn't suggesting that people with differing opinions not talk to each other. In fact, I specifically said that wasn

[sidewinder]

It's kind of funny how Wade talks about "paradigms" as if they are an objective part of the world that those who take graduate courses in philosophy would study in the same way a graduate chemist would study an electron shell. The idea of a "paradigm" is contraversial in the philosophy of science, and I think we're all still waiting for a single clear cut example of a paradigm, or a paradigm shift. Kuhn doesn't appear to have succeeded in revolutionizing the philosophy of science with his idea, and one could pursue many interesting problems in the philosophy of science without having to spend much time if any, thinking about "paradigms." And even if Kuhn were right, a paradigm wouldn't be nearly as trivial as Wade presents. You know, you have your paradigm, i have mine, they have their own self-contained internal logic that defies comparison so we should just all go home now nothing to see here folks. No, a paradigm would be far reaching. A paradigm shift would affect the entire scientific world or at least an entire field of reserach. The kind of paradigm that exists from person to person, that can change on a daily basis, is found in Steven Covey. And that kind of paradigm is more about being your best self, not meant as a serious anti-realist philosophy.

When the word "paradigm" gets brought up in apologetics, you can be sure you're not in for a serious discussion and best to just smile and move on. I have not seen a meaningful comment about "paradigms" yet from an apologist. A serious discussion about paradigms would be contraversial at best. But when it's tied to apologetics, it merely becomes the psuedo-scholarly way of covering ones ears and screaming.