Dan Vogel'S Video "Religious Seekers & Mormon Authority"

[Dan Vogel]

Friends!

I have posted another video "Religious Seekers and Mormon Authority Claims":

From its inception Mormonism’s restoration claims were radical in nature. It was to be more than a restoration of correct doctrine or a reorganization of church government. The Mormon restoration was to be a return of the spiritual power and authority of God through apostles. Because of such radical restoration claims many Mormons tend to see their religion as springing spontaneously out of the American wilderness without roots to any previous religious movement. My purpose here is to introduce my listeners to various groups and individuals who seemed to have anticipated the kind of religious and spiritual restoration Mormonism represented.

[cdowis]

Dan,

Are you going to answer questions on your control of sources -- selection, quality, validation issues. You are giving the impression that you only use sources that fit a specific agenda, and you ignore requests for any comments on that topic.

How can we trust anything that you publish with those questions unanswered of the reliability of your sources.

Edited November 16, 2012 by cdowis

[altersteve]

What? No Mormon I know sees the Church as "springing spontaneously" out of anything, much less the "American wilderness," whatever that means.

[mfbukowski]

How can we trust anything that you publish with those questions unanswered of the reliability of your sources.

Uh, you can't.

This is news to you?

[Dan Vogel]

Dan,

Are you going to answer questions on your control of sources -- selection, quality, validation issues. You are giving the impression that you only use sources that fit a specific agenda, and you ignore requests for any comments on that topic.

How can we trust anything that you publish with those questions unanswered of the reliability of your sources.

C.Dowis,

I’m puzzled by your question. You ask it as if I have missed something you or some other person has asked. Where are these requests? I just haven’t had a chance to get back here for a few days. But looking at your statement here, it doesn’t seem like real questions you are asking, but pretending like you see an issue with my presentation that isn’t there. My book “Religious Seekers and the Advent of Mormonism” got good reviews by those who know the topic well and it was even used by Richard T. Hughes in a graduate course at Pepperdine University. So I don’t understand the grounds by which you think you are justified in questioning my use of sources.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Dan Vogel

[Dan Vogel]

What? No Mormon I know sees the Church as "springing spontaneously" out of anything, much less the "American wilderness," whatever that means.

I don’t know how many or what kind of Mormons you know, but please explain where you think Mormonism came from? Was it from previous theological discussions or by revelation or both? Not many Mormons know about the Seekers or Jason Mack or the context of Joseph Smith Sr.’s dreams. What I mean by “springing spontaneously out of the American wilderness” is that most Mormons do not see Mormonism or it’s theology as a response to antecedents, but rather as revelation—a revealed restoration.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Dan Vogel

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Dan,

Are you going to answer questions on your control of sources -- selection, quality, validation issues. You are giving the impression that you only use sources that fit a specific agenda, and you ignore requests for any comments on that topic.

How can we trust anything that you publish with those questions unanswered of the reliability of your sources.

How dare you question Dr. Dan...Dan the man

[mfbukowski]

I don’t know how many or what kind of Mormons you know, but please explain where you think Mormonism came from? Was it from previous theological discussions or by revelation or both? Not many Mormons know about the Seekers or Jason Mack or the context of Joseph Smith Sr.’s dreams. What I mean by “springing spontaneously out of the American wilderness” is that most Mormons do not see Mormonism or it’s theology as a response to antecedents, but rather as revelation—a revealed restoration.

And so I suppose, these are mutually incompatible according to you- in other words your assumption is that it is one or the other- revelation or as the result of historical antecedents but being both is not possible.

Is that about all you are saying?

[mfbukowski]

What I mean by “springing spontaneously out of the American wilderness” is that most Mormons do not see Mormonism or it’s theology as a response to antecedents, but rather as revelation—a revealed restoration.

Virtually any Mormon knows that we believe that this land was prepared for the restoration, and that this was the "promised land" and that God held the New World in reserve precisely so that the restoration could be accomplished here. It is clear in the Book of Mormon that this is the case.

It is not surprising that this preparation would include a spiritual one as well with historical antecedents preparing the way, as it were, for the restoration.

Your implication that if it had antecedents, then it could not be revelation, is simply silly.

Any believing Mormon would see these "antecedents" as inspired preparation for the "real thing" when it finally came.

I mean it is interesting history and all, but it has no theological implications for Mormonism whatsoever, if that is what you were hoping for.

[Dan Vogel]

And so I suppose, these are mutually incompatible according to you- in other words your assumption is that it is one or the other- revelation or as the result of historical antecedents but being both is not possible.

Is that about all you are saying?

No. It could be both. What I’m saying in the video is important no matter what you believe about Mormonism. My main purpose is to contextualize Mormon origins, not necessarily disprove it. Of course, I don’t ignore problems that may arise out of that process. But they are secondary to me.

Edited November 18, 2012 by Dan Vogel

[Dan Vogel]

Virtually any Mormon knows that we believe that this land was prepared for the restoration, and that this was the "promised land" and that God held the New World in reserve precisely so that the restoration could be accomplished here. It is clear in the Book of Mormon that this is the case.

It is not surprising that this preparation would include a spiritual one as well with historical antecedents preparing the way, as it were, for the restoration.

Your implication that if it had antecedents, then it could not be revelation, is simply silly.

Any believing Mormon would see these "antecedents" as inspired preparation for the "real thing" when it finally came.

I mean it is interesting history and all, but it has no theological implications for Mormonism whatsoever, if that is what you were hoping for.

I wasn’t hoping for anything in this video, but to educate people about the theological context of the Mormon restoration. Where does it fit? I don’t think it proves or disproves anything about Mormonism’s truth claims, but many Mormons ignore Mormonism’s debt to theological debates because they think it came through revelation. All they know is apostasy and the doctrines of men and then restoration of pristine Christianity through Joseph Smith. When I set out to seriously study Mormon origins some thirty years ago, it wasn’t to disprove it. I simply wanted to know everything about it.

[altersteve]

I don’t know how many or what kind of Mormons you know, but please explain where you think Mormonism came from? Was it from previous theological discussions or by revelation or both? Not many Mormons know about the Seekers or Jason Mack or the context of Joseph Smith Sr.’s dreams. What I mean by “springing spontaneously out of the American wilderness” is that most Mormons do not see Mormonism or it’s theology as a response to antecedents, but rather as revelation—a revealed restoration.

What I mean is that we don't believe the Restoration just sprung up out of the blue one day. We believe it was a long time coming and a gradual process; there was nothing "spontaneous" about it. Our doctrine says many historical events leading up to the Restoration were inspired by God in order for the Restoration to take place. That may be useful to mention.

I understand what you meant, but what you said is very misleading.

Edited November 18, 2012 by altersteve

[Dan Vogel]

What I mean is that we don't believe the Restoration just sprung up out of the blue one day. We believe it was a long time coming and a gradual process; there was nothing "spontaneous" about it. Our doctrine says many historical events leading up to the Restoration were inspired by God in order for the Restoration to take place. That may be useful to mention.

I understand what you meant, but what you said is very misleading.

I know what you mean, but it doesn't contradict what I said.

[cdowis]

I wasn’t hoping for anything in this video, but to educate people about the theological context of the Mormon restoration. Where does it fit?

Can you give us your scholastic background in theology -- your degree, your published papers on theological discussions.

Again, we want to determine whether you are a credible scholar in this area, or if you are simply creating a hit piece, hiding behind your scholastic credentials in HISTORY. Tell us what you know about religious doctrines and theology == how much have you read the New Testament, the Old Testament, the other LDS scriptures to give us YOUR CONTEXT, a sense of your understanding of these things.

I will be interested in comparing your bona fides with my own, and others in this forum. You can put these things out to the general public, but when you come to this forum, talking about theology, we are going to hand you your head, theologically speaking, of course

Edited November 19, 2012 by cdowis

[cdowis]

C.Dowis,

I’m puzzled by your question. You ask it as if I have missed something you or some other person has asked. Where are these requests? I just haven’t had a chance to get back here for a few days. But looking at your statement here, it doesn’t seem like real questions you are asking, but pretending like you see an issue with my presentation that isn’t there. My book “Religious Seekers and the Advent of Mormonism” got good reviews by those who know the topic well and it was even used by Richard T. Hughes in a graduate course at Pepperdine University. So I don’t understand the grounds by which you think you are justified in questioning my use of sources.

[mfbukowski]

I wasn’t hoping for anything in this video, but to educate people about the theological context of the Mormon restoration. Where does it fit? I don’t think it proves or disproves anything about Mormonism’s truth claims, but many Mormons ignore Mormonism’s debt to theological debates because they think it came through revelation. All they know is apostasy and the doctrines of men and then restoration of pristine Christianity through Joseph Smith. When I set out to seriously study Mormon origins some thirty years ago, it wasn’t to disprove it. I simply wanted to know everything about it.

So it is your position that all of Mormon theology came out of what you call "it's historical antecedents"?

As usual, it seems to me that you equivocate and squirm and never say anything directly and use nothing but innuendo which vanishes like a puff of smoke when someone turns the light on.

It could have been revelation but dumb Mormons "think it came through revelation". Mormons might think that this continent was prepared spiritually and intellectually for the return of the gospel, but that doesn't count because Mormons don't really think that. Or something.

It's just confusion an innuendo. Smoke and mirrors. No real argument about anything and not even much entertainment value in the video.

No stars from me, and two thumbs down. Turn on a fan and whatever smoke is left from the magic show we thought we'd see, just reveals an empty stage.

I want my 20 minutes back.

Edit: OOPS!?!?! I actually gave that thing FORTY MINUTES OF MY LIFE?

I will regret that one on my death bed.

Edited November 19, 2012 by mfbukowski

[altersteve]

I know what you mean, but it doesn't contradict what I said.

Yes it does. You said we see the Restoration as happening "spontaneously." We do not.

[mfbukowski]

Yes it does. You said we see the Restoration as happening "spontaneously." We do not.

That's exactly it and there is no resolving the conflict. Either you believe it was inspired or you don't. Period, game over.

And he already gave away what side of the question he was on with this:

but many Mormons ignore Mormonism’s debt to theological debates because they think it came through revelation.

There is no resolution possible to the difference and no way to prove either point of view. Either it was revelation or it wasn't.

That makes it a real yawner from here out.

[altersteve]

I agree. And I think the only way the Restoration would have been "spontaneous" is if it were NOT inspired.

[altersteve]

Also, I'm curious as to why he would say that "many Mormons ignore Mormonism's debt to theological debates." It was these debates that drove Joseph Smith to follow the counsel in James 1:5, otherwise the First Vision wouldn't have happened. We do not "ignore" these debates or "Mormonism's debt" to them at all.

[ControlFreak]

While I'm sure most people on this board are aware of the historical background leading up to the time of the restoration, I think Dan makes a very fair point that most mormons think the restoration "sprang up out of the wilderness".

Yes, it is true that most mormons believe that the Lord prepared the way for the church (Martin Luther, american continent, religious freedom, etc. etc.), but that kind of preparation is more the preparation of the soil, which to me is very different than some of the actual key ideas already being present prior to Joseph writing the BoM. Unfortunately, I think this falls into the same category of discussion such as people arguing that mormons really are aware of polyandry, BoA issues, etc. (They really, really aren't. In my experience, almost no one knows of those issues) But I guess unless we were to take a poll of mormons, it is hard to prove anything.

I also think it is very reasonable and pertinent to discuss the theological ideas that existed prior to mormonism and how they affected Joseph's own thinking. I'm not sure why there is such a negative response to Dan. I'm aware that he isn't a fan of the church, but I guess there is more history there that I'm not aware of...

[ControlFreak]

While I'm sure most people on this board are aware of the historical background leading up to the time of the restoration, I think Dan makes a very fair point that most mormons think the restoration "sprang up out of the wilderness".

Yes, it is true that most mormons believe that the Lord prepared the way for the church (Martin Luther, american continent, religious freedom, etc. etc.), but that kind of preparation is more the preparation of the soil, which to me is very different than some of the actual key ideas already being present prior to Joseph writing the BoM. Unfortunately, I think this falls into the same category of discussion such as people arguing that mormons really are aware of polyandry, BoA issues, etc. (They really, really aren't. In my experience, almost no one knows of those issues) But I guess unless we were to take a poll of mormons, it is hard to prove anything.

I also think it is very reasonable and pertinent to discuss the theological ideas that existed prior to mormonism and how they affected Joseph's own thinking. I'm not sure why there is such a negative response to Dan. I'm aware that he isn't a fan of the church, but I guess there is more history there that I'm not aware of...

[Dan Vogel]

Can you give us your scholastic background in theology -- your degree, your published papers on theological discussions.

Again, we want to determine whether you are a credible scholar in this area, or if you are simply creating a hit piece, hiding behind your scholastic credentials in HISTORY. Tell us what you know about religious doctrines and theology == how much have you read the New Testament, the Old Testament, the other LDS scriptures to give us YOUR CONTEXT, a sense of your understanding of these things.

I will be interested in comparing your bona fides with my own, and others in this forum. You can put these things out to the general public, but when you come to this forum, talking about theology, we are going to hand you your head, theologically speaking, of course

Listen, Mr. Dowis. Why threaten me about something that’s not really that controversial? You either have some objection about what I said or you don’t. The fact that you are trying to angle toward some ad hominem and haven’t given some legitimate critique tells us something about your “bona fides”. My video was not about theology per se, but the history of a few religious ideas and how they relate to a few ideas about Mormonism.

Your complaint about my not answering your last post about my witnesses video in another thread is explained by my not seeing it until now, not because I was confounded as you seem to imply. You should be able to answer it yourself considering how many times we have gone over it. You seem to think the published testimony of eight witnesses is clearly describing a non-supernatural experience. It simply says they saw and handled the plates, but it doesn’t say how. The statements of John Whitmer and Martin Harris that the plates were seen supernaturally don’t contract the published testimony. They can be harmonized. The problem is that you prefer your assumptions over the contextualizing statements of outside sources.

[Dan Vogel]

So it is your position that all of Mormon theology came out of what you call "it's historical antecedents"?

As usual, it seems to me that you equivocate and squirm and never say anything directly and use nothing but innuendo which vanishes like a puff of smoke when someone turns the light on.

It could have been revelation but dumb Mormons "think it came through revelation". Mormons might think that this continent was prepared spiritually and intellectually for the return of the gospel, but that doesn't count because Mormons don't really think that. Or something.

It's just confusion an innuendo. Smoke and mirrors. No real argument about anything and not even much entertainment value in the video.

No stars from me, and two thumbs down. Turn on a fan and whatever smoke is left from the magic show we thought we'd see, just reveals an empty stage.

I want my 20 minutes back.

Edit: OOPS!?!?! I actually gave that thing FORTY MINUTES OF MY LIFE?

I will regret that one on my death bed.

Mr. Bukowski, I’m sorry that your world is so polemical that nothing is interesting or significant unless it comes out for or against Mormonism.

[Dan Vogel]

Yes it does. You said we see the Restoration as happening "spontaneously." We do not.

Believing that God manipulated history to prepare the way for the restoration is not the same as saying Mormonism was indebted to previous theological debates.