“Occult Context Of Js’S 1823 Discovery Of Gold Plates”

[Tacenda]

I'm not saying its a far-fetched idea. I just question the notion that we ought to accept that he was so heavily involved in it all based on what seems to me pretty scant data.

Totally agree, that's why I'm at a standstill in my beliefs right now. And yes, I've prayed to get an answer, for those that harp about that! Times were different back then, I'm open for anything, I guess.

[SamIam]

Now, based on the principles you have outlined, in what way would you form a basis of belief or disbelief in the legitimacy of the photos? Would you require yourself to be 100% open to the existence of fairies? Would someone who believes in fairies be better suited to examining the photos than one who didn't? How might their approaches be different based on their beliefs (or lack of beliefs)?

To answer your question sincerely, though your contrivance is designed to complicate the issue it only serves to validate my premise. Doyle, long before the fairy pictures, was already an avid spiritualist. Thus his conclusions as he examined the "evidence" found proof sustaining his predetermined belief that the fairies were simply evidence of what he already knew to be true.

Houdini on the other hand, while accepting certain aspects of an afterlife, was very skeptical of illusions and deceptions as none knew better than he how easy it was to fool an unsuspecting public. Thus his preconceived bias was proven in time to be what he knew to be true as well.

Both of these men held on to their final conclusions until their deathbeds with many individuals believing in one side or the other of the debate that would not be truly know until the admission of the fraud which came many years later.

Still one must note that Vogel is neither believer nor skeptic. As a declared atheist, it is not that he remains in the realms of those that believe in varying degrees of depth, that there is a God or that as a skeptic he simply doubts religious prerogatives, he has completely made up his mind that there is no doubt and thus a skeptics preference has given way to a “pundit’s” inerrancy.

Thus it becomes clear that truth and the search for it are very much of a personal effort. Belief itself is not an adequate measure of who would be most appropriate to comment on fairies. Instead it is based on how willing one is to exercise the principles of understanding truth and willingness to accept the guidance of a higher source of understanding independent of where one begins the point of inquiry as a believer or a skeptic. As one pursues the quest one finds standards upon which to base their perceptions of truth. The quest becomes more sure as one learns to trust upon the unseen evidences that are always forthcoming for the sincere seekers, thus reducing the amount of dross and drivel that must be analyzed as one seeks for the genuine treasures. In your effort to muddy the waters you did not pay much homage to either of the key standards that I mentioned and you skip over the "principles I have outlined" for discerning truth as if to you they were in some way inadequate to the test of sophistic inquiry. So though I have already outlined clearly enough two primary principles I will repeat them again.

First I gave a key to understanding that is always correct and never in error when I stated “the works of apostates never have as their objective the edification of the Lord,” and I now add, or his servants. While, I would not be remiss to quote this phrase as I heard it – “I have never ordained apostates to lead to the truth”, I thought the rewording made it more suitable to the subject at hand. Still it is a clear and obvious fact, that I apply to this trial of intellectual integrity, that in the courts of law we would call Mr. Vogel a hostile witness and it is prudent to apply the same standards of evaluating his testimony in this instance as any prudent juror would in a court of law.

The second key is equally as sure and also never in error. I freely acknowledge that it took a few years to understand the application of this wisdom. However, once one masters it, it is as absolutly distinct as an earlier not diplayed verse in context states; as day is from night.

Moroni 7:16-17

16 For behold, the ^aSpirit of Christ is given to every ^bman, that he may ^cknow good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do ^aevil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

Dan Vogel does not believe in God or fairies and thus consistent with the examples you cite he proves over and over to himself that his initial perspective was right all along. In his world there is neither room for Gods nor fairies and so he relegates Moses, Joseph Smith, Sir James Matthew Barrie and Charles Perrault to the same heap of imagination’s excess. It is a forgone conclusion before the research begins that he will not find any evidence to the contrary of his preconceived bias even if there should be some meritorious consideration, for the scope of his vision is constrained by the myopic priority of his self-limiting gaze.

Edited June 4, 2013 by SamIam

[cinepro]

Dan Vogel does not believe in God or fairies and thus consistent with the examples you cite he proves over and over to himself that his initial perspective was right all along.

I don't know to what degree Dan is an "atheist", but if he were to avow that he would believe in God should good evidence come forth, would that qualify him to investigate supernatural claims?

The idea that someone has to believe in something in order to adequately appraise claims made regarding something is a little silly. When someone makes an incredible claim, I want the most skeptical people possible to investigate it. Certainly the "believers" should have their say, but whether about God, fairies, or cold fusion, if one is trying to determine the validity of a claim, the disbelievers can also have valuable input, as there can be very good reasons that they are disbelievers in the first place.

Edited June 5, 2013 by cinepro

[canard78]

I started but did not finish watching the video. However, my point is that one cannot depend on any conclusions that a researcher of things religious, who denies the existence of a God, can make when those conclusions of necessity exclude the mystical realms that embrace the conditions that are attributed to the venues in which a God works.

My second point is a personal one. In my youth and well into my 30's, I read fantasy novels with elves,trolls, gnomes and wizards with gusto. On vacations when I was a single chap I could read 7 books in the week. As I have matured, be it ever so slowly, I have realized that having a greater potential to accept the mystical is a gift that defends against the clinical mentality of those whose gift is simply the organization and analysis of the dry bones of history. Once the wires and connectors are all in place it is still but a skeleton and each of us is left with the task of envisioning the face of what we think it looks like.

Being able to freely believe that stone ax heads can float, waters can be parted, floods can cover every portion of the earth and that a young boy can see and converse with God the Father and Jesus Christ is simply an extension of a mindset that had yet to separate realities from fantasy but had the potential to grasp the things hoped for and to perceive the evidence of things unseen. I see Joseph as having the natural gift of believing in the mystical which only needed time and experience to hone.

Finally, It takes little time of watching the video to realize that the Moroni 7 clause for knowing if something is of Christ is violated. Does it make me wish to serve Him more? Or does is call into question the existence of the God I worship? In the absence of the first and the affirmation of the second, I am left with a "perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night" that the works of apostates never have as their objective the edification of the Lord or his ways and only serve the purpose of leading Gods children astray. Candidly, boldly and with no reserve I can only condemn such as of the devil and continue skipping happily down the sidewalk of my life unburdened by the weight of another's unyielding effort to get as many others as possible to shoulder what is his faithless burden to bear.

Two questions:

First:

- If a researcher or historian does not have the same religious world view as you, you dismiss their research wholesale. Are you more willing to accept the work of the Tanners because they approach Mormonism from a Christian world view but couch their historical arguments in the context of a living interactive God? Do you apply the same dismissiveness to Historians of Ancient Israel, Catholic Popes or William the Conquerer? All times in history where the 'players' did/said or achieved certain things which they attributed to an act or intervention of the divine.

"Hastings was by no means the inevitable triumph of feudal heavy cavalry over ‘outmoded’ Germanic infantry; the battle raged from dawn to dusk, the Normans came close to complete disaster, and it was chance alone that Harold, not William, was slain. Contemporaries regarded the battle as so closely fought that only divine intervention could explain William’s eventual victory."

http://srqmedievalfair.wordpress.com/2009/08/08/was-the-winner-at-hastings-a-forgone-conclusion/

Would you reject all research on WtQ if the historian was not a fellow believer of the 1066 perspective of divine intervention handing William the victory. I certainly would not. There were a series of events and a combination of several pieces of bad luck that lead to Harold loss. From a 'helicopter view' of hindsight we're able to line up all those events. The contemporaries with their limited view of events combined with a particular religious perspective can be understood. I don't want to derail this into a discussion about whether WtQ did actually have divine assistance and whether God chooses the winner of every battle faught. My question is, would you only read a historian who first is of the opinion that his victory could have been.

Second:

- By calling on Moroni 7 you're creating an awkward dichotomy. Are you saying:

17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him. (Book of Mormon, Moroni 7)

If a researcher's conclusions challenge your particular spiritual perspectives or goals, does that mean the research (and researcher) is, effectively, an agent of evil? (!!) We may struggle to attract any kind of discussion and meaningful interaction with non-Mormon historians if we greet them at the gate with knives and pitchforks and strap them to the ducking stool to see how evil they are.

Instead of dismissing the content by shooting the messenger, why not engage with the evidence and arguments to point out where he is wrong? The LDS apologetics and historians are undermined when their best line of defence is "you're being stupid" or worse, "you're an agent of the Devil."

[SamIam]

I don't know to what degree Dan is an "atheist", but if he were to avow that he would believe in God should good evidence come forth, would that qualify him to investigate supernatural claims?

The idea that someone has to believe in something in order to adequately appraise claims made regarding something is a little silly. When someone makes an incredible claim, I want the most skeptical people possible to investigate it. Certainly the "believers" should have their say, but whether about God, fairies, or cold fusion, if one is trying to determine the validity of a claim, the disbelievers can also have valuable input, as there can be very good reasons that they are disbelievers in the first place.

I think you missed one of my edits where I stated:

Thus it becomes clear that truth and the search for it are very much of a personal effort. Belief itself is not an adequate measure of who would be most appropriate to comment on fairies. Instead it is based on how willing one is to exercise the principles of understanding truth and willingness to accept the guidance of a higher source of understanding independent of where one begins the point of inquiry as a believer or a skeptic.

As to his status as an atheist hopefully he will confirm his Wikipedia write-up as correct or in error.

Now based on above statement on belief, how does this work into your paradigm. Also, twice now you have passed over what I consider the most sure method and that is the Moroni 7 test. Is this by accident or intent?

Edited June 5, 2013 by SamIam

[tagriffy]

I'm not saying its a far-fetched idea. I just question the notion that we ought to accept that he was so heavily involved in it all based on what seems to me pretty scant data.

I know you're not. I can still question the conclusions though. I'm not sure there is as strong a case as people (liek Dan) are saying.

And, f course, in the end it doesn't matter if JS was all caught up in it. It wouldn't necessarily affect his prophetic claims.

That he was involved in it seems to be a sound conclusion. If we only had critics for sources, we could reject it, but we also have friendly sources on the subject of Joseph's involvement in folk magic as well. How heavily he was involved may well be another question, but I would not call the data scant.

Obviously, if I'm willing to accept the view that his involvement in the "occult" served as preparation for his role as a prophet, I also agree such involvement doesn't affect his prophetic claims.

[Kevin Christensen]

Those interested in the sources can always look to Mark Ashurst McGee here:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=18&num=1&id=600

And Larry Morris here:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=17&num=1&id=567

as well as Quinn and Vogel if you like. Personally, I think those two essays by Morris and Ashurst McGee are some of the best things that ever appeared in the FARMS Review.

In considering whose interpretation seems most plausible, there are ways of comparing paradigms (see Kuhn, for instance), though, of course, no rules for doing so, which means that we can emphasize what gives "cause to believe" (as Alma puts it), but no one has the means coerce anyone into sure knowledge. We can only try to persuade people.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Calm]

This is hardly much of a conundrum. To form “a basis of belief or disbelief” I would simply sprinkle a tiny bit of pixie dust on the picture thus animating the little fairies. Then I would ask them what they thought of Dan Vogel if they praised his wisdom I would know instantly that these are not fairies but devilish imps masquerading as fairies. If they protested in shrill voices that they would not discuss “he who must not be named” then of course who am I to disregard the reality of fairies?

PS: I do not believe that Vogel's stuff should be ignored or dismissed without serious considering....but that is not only hilarious, but quite original.

[SamIam]

Two questions:

First:

- If a researcher or historian does not have the same religious world view as you, you dismiss their research wholesale. Are you more willing to accept the work of the Tanners because they approach Mormonism from a Christian world view but couch their historical arguments in the context of a living interactive God? Do you apply the same dismissiveness to Historians of Ancient Israel, Catholic Popes or William the Conquerer? All times in history where the 'players' did/said or achieved certain things which they attributed to an act or intervention of the divine.

Would you reject all research on WtQ if the historian was not a fellow believer of the 1066 perspective of divine intervention handing William the victory. I certainly would not. There were a series of events and a combination of several pieces of bad luck that lead to Harold loss. From a 'helicopter view' of hindsight we're able to line up all those events. The contemporaries with their limited view of events combined with a particular religious perspective can be understood. I don't want to derail this into a discussion about whether WtQ did actually have divine assistance and whether God chooses the winner of every battle faught. My question is, would you only read a historian who first is of the opinion that his victory could have been.

Second:

- By calling on Moroni 7 you're creating an awkward dichotomy. Are you saying:

If a researcher's conclusions challenge your particular spiritual perspectives or goals, does that mean the research (and researcher) is, effectively, an agent of evil? (!!) We may struggle to attract any kind of discussion and meaningful interaction with non-Mormon historians if we greet them at the gate with knives and pitchforks and strap them to the ducking stool to see how evil they are.

Instead of dismissing the content by shooting the messenger, why not engage with the evidence and arguments to point out where he is wrong? The LDS apologetics and historians are undermined when their best line of defence is "you're being stupid" or worse, "you're an agent of the Devil."

Like Cinepro (pronounced Cinepro), I believe you are not reading carefully enough my points and are reading into it more than I state. If Dan Vogel wrote on under water basket weaving and I found it interesting I would read it and practice his techniques. I am not aware of any that have apostatized from underwater basket weaving principles that would render their observations as blinded by a preconceived bias against other underwater basket weavers of renown. Most who do not embrace good underwater weaving techniques commonly probably drown and cannot lead others astray anyway. So it is with writers concerning William the Conqueror. I already know this much about historical events:

Romans 9:17

17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

God’s hand is in all things and anything I would ever evaluate about William would always be within that paradigm. I can read any and all sources for the intelligent expectation that the subject matter is not one of spiritual significance and thus to be weighed more carefully. However, other than for entertainment value, if I really wanted to know as much as possible of the information concerning William I wouldn’t feel very comfortable if Harold Godwinson was the author. A man’s enemies cannot speak true concerning the man himself. God’s enemies are no different.

Some may go away but often it is the case that they turn on their former belief structure and can only seek to attack and destroy. This is as taught in Hebrews:

Hebrew 6:4-6

4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

There are grades and degrees of expression of this condition in individuals that qualify, however, the principle is true.

The problem with explanations such as this that are based upon a scriptural priority is in many minds it does not carry the weight of a proof based priority such as we are trained to from the moment we enter first grade. For me I have left behind a standard that gleaned knowledge from any available source as I began to realize that the scriptures and prophets were far and away the superior source when it came to theological interests. Thus what they say weighs much heavier in my evaluations of truth than anything written by others who do not manifest a similar priority. Still I will read and study any source that does not present itself as a lie from the very premise of its origins. Apostates do not fall into that category.

Those with a more even handed rational tone might wonder how can I express the audacious attitude that states I know something is dangerous independent of actually drinking the poison that proves it, as is the expectation of a highly educated people. Once I have learned a pattern for discerning the sources of purer water upstream must I continue to revisit the polluted waters down from the treatment plant to verify to myself over and over that no matter how well you clean the sewage it just doesn’t taste the same as what I have come to realize is better water?

Thus as I have already stated it is not whether I agree or not, whether I believe as they do or not that shapes my response to Mr. Vogal’s tangential theological efforts. Instead it is about someone’s ability to convey truthful conclusions based on their willingness and ability to present truthful conclusions within the expectations of their efforts. It is also about their undermining those whom I feel obligated to stand up for and defend, when they are not here to defend themselves. In other words it is a strange dichotomy to seek for correct interpretations of a servant of God by a person who does not think there is a God. Up until about 5 years ago I owned everything that Dan had published to that time. I valued the opportunity to glean from his research only the quotes and material that represented the more obscure mentions by apostles and prophets on various subjects. However, I could avoid his frequently biased and obviously tainted personal observations readily as I took what I wanted and discarded the rest. When it comes to listening to someone on an audio I have no such filtering potential. What I might glean in 3 minutes of scanning pages, I might have to listen to 45 minutes of bias to get to.

Thus your hyperbolic interpretation that I cannot agree with anyone that does not agree with me is unfounded and was clearly explained earlier. It is unfair to create a crazed religious fanatic persona relative to issues not even remotely related to the topic of our discussion or any quotable statements in my responses within context. An apostate can never tell the truth about that from which he has apostatized because he cannot see the truth to which he is blinded. I consider it the highest form of hypocrisy to disclaim God and then present oneself as having any capacity or credibility to interpret events that are dependent upon a God to perform. If this is not clear, let me know I will try again.

As far as relying on Moroni 7 as a standard which you consider “creating an awkward dichotomy”, it is a standard in all venues and across the board it is valid. I realize an appeal to scripture as the final arbiter in what is truth is not a popular stance to take with some; they viewing the principle of scripture as the priority as simple minded and childish and an indicator of limited intellectual credibility. As there are many subjects and or situations that simply do not fit the conditions of judgments that Moroni 7 expects – neutral topics and subjects if you will, we can use it to evaluate that standard and proceed in wild abandon.

However, Moroni 7 is best used for things that call evil good and good evil. If you read carefully it has nothing to do with the obvious acts of evil such as robbing a bank or smacking your little brother with a 2 X 4. In its purest use it is precisely the supreme standard for measuring ideologies and false dichotomies. It seems that classing that standard as an awkward dichotomy may paradoxically fit in there somewhere. It is definitely not for the easy sins of clear observation but instead points the way to see clear through the challenging sophistries and philosophies that in pleasant presentation seem so benign. Would you not class that as perfect for evaluating conclusions relating to God and his servants?

To conclude the best thing is to read my post for what it says and defines and not to “expand” into broad generalizations. Never do I categorize all researchers as one huge group of apostates. Only apostates are apostate and even they could research anything else except that to which they have become agitated against.

I am not an apologist and I suspect it has become obvious that it is not probably on the horizon of my near future. When I view an apostate I consider the potential for lost souls that may fall prey to their smooth sophistries. I have dealt with many that have left because of them over the years and it is invariably a horrible and tragic loss that I cannot measure against being acceptable in a rarified group which may discount me as readily as I do apostates. An apologist has a place and serves a purpose. I appreciate their efforts in the venues that receive them and value their contributions but they are not the only voice that can reach all people. Sometimes one who errs on the side of a spiritual education priority has a voice that needs to be heard.

As well, if you perceived my best line of defense as “stupid” that was simply a poor attempt at humor and the agent of the devil comments are simply the class that fits when one is classifying those that fight against God. (Tanners Included) Still if you did not get beyond those comments then I suggest you may have discounted me and my evidence, those scriptural supports, and references to revelation which I have provided as inadequate tools upon which to make my observations.

Edited June 5, 2013 by SamIam

[Calm]

Two questions:

First:

- If a researcher or historian does not have the same religious world view as you, you dismiss their research wholesale.

I don't see him doing that. I think he dismisses researchers who refuse to consider other possibilities for causes than their own beliefs.

[volgadon]

Samlam, did you watch the video yet? If not, perhaps it is not just a retread.

Brant Gardner in my understanding...not having a chance to read his book yet...wrote a text examining the nature of the folk beliefs surrounding seerstones and such so it seems to me the topic is not exhausted as of yet.

I read that part of the book. I have a few theoretical disagreements, but it is a very important study of magic in Joseph's context.

[SamIam]

I don't see him doing that. I think he dismisses researchers who refuse to consider other possibilities for causes than their own beliefs.

Thank you.

[Nevo]

A man’s enemies cannot speak true concerning the man himself. God’s enemies are no different. Some may go away but often it is the case that they turn on their former belief structure and can only seek to attack and destroy. . . . Those with a more even handed rational tone might wonder how can I express the audacious attitude that states I know something is dangerous independent of actually drinking the poison that proves it, as is the expectation of a highly educated people. Once I have learned a pattern for discerning the sources of purer water upstream must I continue to revisit the polluted waters down from the treatment plant to verify to myself over and over that no matter how well you clean the sewage it just doesn’t taste the same as what I have come to realize is better water? . . . In other words it is a strange dichotomy to seek for correct interpretations of a servant of God by a person who does not think there is a God. Up until about 5 years ago I owned everything that Dan had published to that time. I valued the opportunity to glean from his research only the quotes and material that represented the more obscure mentions by apostles and prophets on various subjects. However, I could avoid his consistently biased and obviously tainted personal observations readily as I took what I wanted and discarded the rest. When it comes to listening to someone on an audio I have no such filtering potential. What I might glean in 3 minutes of scanning pages, I might have to listen to 45 minutes of bias to get to. . . . An apostate can never tell the truth about that from which he has apostatized because he cannot see the truth to which he is blinded. I consider it the highest form of hypocrisy to disclaim God and then present oneself as having any capacity or credibility to interpret events that are dependent upon a God to perform. . . . the agent of the devil comments are simply the class that fits when one is classifying those that fight against God.

Good grief, man. If you don't want to watch Dan Vogel's video, then don't. How many more stream-of-consciousness tirades are you going to spam this thread with without ever engaging anything he's actually said? And where do you get off calling a respected historian and fellow poster on this board an apostate, enemy of God, liar, hypocrite, and agent of the devil? I know you think that's "audacious" truth-telling and you clearly delight in tweaking what you regard as the pieities of the high-minded, but actually its just called being obnoxious and uncivil.

(FYI, as has already been mentioned, there are a number of believing LDS historians that share Vogel's view that Joseph Smith's "path to prophethood" was shaped significantly by his involvement in treasure seeking and folk magic.)

Edited June 5, 2013 by Nevo

[SamIam]

(FYI, as has already been mentioned, there are a number of believing LDS historians that share Vogel's view that Joseph Smith's "path to prophethood" was shaped significantly by his involvement in treasure seeking and folk magic.)

As i stated in one of my earlier posts, I agree that Joseph's efforts in the mystical shaped his efforts as well. It appears that you may have missed the intent of my objections but I felt the contrast with Vogel and that of a hostile witness was more than adequate to convey the imagery of merit. A wolf in a sheepskin is no different than a wolf with a sheepskin but respectability should be at least in part based on objective capacity...don't ya think? It is a very simple point that I have attempted to make but you need not agree with me to make it a cogent one.

As well I have to agree that sometimes I do appear obnoxious and uncivil to some. To others I am just passionate about standing up in defense of those who I consider my friends that have no voice in a forum such as this one.

I am pleased that you have the same courage to stand for those you believe though we appear to have different filters for determining what should be defended.

Edited June 5, 2013 by SamIam

[teddyaware]

New Video by Dan Vogel: “Occult Context of Joseph Smith’s 1823 Discovery of Gold Plates”

Description: The purpose of this video will be to reconstruct the original story and restore it to its folk magic and treasure seeking context—a part of the story the average Mormon is woefully unaware.

The eloquent, deeply spiritual, and powerfully Christ-centered content of the Book of Mormon belies any supposed "occult" origin. I knew from right the start that Mark Hofmann's "salamander letter" was a crock, just by comparing its contents with the text of the Testimony of the Three Witnesses and the text of the Book of Mormon itself.

[Tacenda]

The eloquent, deeply spiritual, and powerfully Christ-centered content of the Book of Mormon belies any supposed "occult" origin. I knew from right the start that Mark Hofmann's "salamander letter" was a crock, just by comparing its contents with the text of the Testimony of the Three Witnesses and the text of the Book of Mormon itself.

Do you think Mark Hoffman read something in church history about it first, then created the letter? Btw, I've never read the letter. It never interested me back then when the bombungs occurred.

[Calm]

A wolf in a sheepskin is no different than a wolf with a sheepskin

A wolf in sheepskin is someone who is pretending to be something they are not, I do not see Vogel as pretending to be anything but what he is. I think he is very straightforward about his own position of belief.

[Calm]

To conclude the best thing is to read my post for what it says and defines and not to “expand” into broad generalizations.

The problem, I believe, is in using terms that contain inflammatory baggage even if you yourself do not intend that connotation. Insisting on using a word in an idiosyncratic way even if one defines it (which I think you do for the most part) does not lead to effective communication, imo. If there are other ways of communicating the same thing without the inflammatory terms, why choose to use them...unless because they do have the inflammatory baggage and they add a flavour to one's writing that one wants but does not need to make one's actual point.

[SamIam]

A wolf in sheepskin is someone who is pretending to be something they are not, I do not see Vogel as pretending to be anything but what he is. I think he is very straightforward about his own position of belief.

I agree that the comparison is not straight across in terms of deceptive practice.

However, is it not apparent that if he is straightforward, and I agree that he does not try to hide anything, but isn't it odd that he espouses expertise in a subject from which he is alienated by the fact that he can saying "nothing about Father". Whether recognized or not that is the very practice that make conversations involving theological conditions the most dangerous of all. To build them up and develop any line of reasoning that cannot properly acknowledge the source is a deceptive act whether the wolf is hiding beneath the sheep skin or simply pulling to wool over your eyes in plain sight - if we do not recognize the risk we suffer the consequences.

[SamIam]

The problem, I believe, is in using terms that contain inflammatory baggage even if you yourself do not intend that connotation. Insisting on using a word in an idiosyncratic way even if one defines it (which I think you do for the most part) does not lead to effective communication, imo. If there are other ways of communicating the same thing without the inflammatory terms, why choose to use them...unless because they do have the inflammatory baggage and they add a flavour to one's writing that one wants but does not need to make one's actual point.

Again, I can only agree that my style of writing can become inflammatory when I exercise limited reserve. Dulcet tones and pleasantries do not convey an alert in such a way as to stand out from all the other polite and or strongly constrained. I will reiterate that these people that he researches I consider my friends and frequently I feel like someone should be protecting their memory and image with at least the same gusto that we protect those who destroy the meaning of their life's work under the protection of the scholars license. However, my effort is completed and I will dial it down for any future posts of this thread. Really though my point would be unpopular regardless of my approach, though I may further stack the deck against myself with strong language. To critique any scholar, even a poorly qualified one, is bound to elicit posturing from one venue or another. Still, I hope it is clear that I do not categorize all scholars poorly. We have some on this board that even when I disagree with them I can still support their character and integrity. One or two I simply cannot.

[Storm Rider]

Do you think Mark Hoffman read something in church history about it first, then created the letter? Btw, I've never read the letter. It never interested me back then when the bombungs occurred.

No, I think Hoffman created the Salamander letter out of whole cloth. What is so surprising is that some believed it. I remember have a discussion with several other members at the time this came out and we all concluded that though we did not understand where it came from, it was not a reliable document and we all discounted it. That is not to say we as individuals cannot or could not be mislead, but this one was just a little too far out there. I agree that Dan is what Dan is; I just happen to disagree with him on a lot of things. My grandmother, God rest her soul, could douse for water, would throw salt over her left shoulder, and did not like black cats, but she was a fervent Christian. I would disagree with anyone that tried to make it out that her life was centered on the world of magic or anything similar. This entire topic bores me; it is conclusions made from whole cloth.

[stemelbow]

That he was involved in it seems to be a sound conclusion. If we only had critics for sources, we could reject it, but we also have friendly sources on the subject of Joseph's involvement in folk magic as well. How heavily he was involved may well be another question, but I would not call the data scant.

Obviously, if I'm willing to accept the view that his involvement in the "occult" served as preparation for his role as a prophet, I also agree such involvement doesn't affect his prophetic claims.

In terms of heavily invovled, I would call the data scant, at least from what I've seen.

I think we're in agreement otherwise.

[teddyaware]

Do you think Mark Hoffman read something in church history about it first, then created the letter? Btw, I've never read the letter. It never interested me back then when the bombungs occurred.

You should read it. Reading the "letter" while knowing for a surity it's a fraud gives what I believe is an interesting glimpse into the mind and workings of the devil.

In answer to your question: it's no secret that the occult ethos out of which the Book of Mormon supposedly emerged was known by some at the time Hofmann produced the forgery, and this occult angle had been a stock in trade amongst anti-Mormons for many decades. But my point is that the content of the Book of Mormon is far too spiritually profound, powerful, insightful, holy, wisdom-filled and Christ-centered to have been influenced in its production in any significant way by the seedy and dark world of the occult -- a world that places little, if any, significance on Jesus Christ and his atonement taught in purity.

For me, all things considered, the occult angle in the life of Joseph Smith doesn't add up to anything more than what was probably just adolescent dabbling into the world of fantasy -- an amusement that was soon put aside as young Joseph grew in grace and spiritual maturity.

I believe it's possible that one day the Lord Himself will challenge some of the unbelievers in the Book of Mormon by saying, "if you had only carefully read and pondered the Book of Mormon, and prayed unto me in faith, and true sincerity of heart as you studied it, you would have known it was of God and not the work of sorcery." I believe that oneday the Lord will reveal, with great power and glory, that the Book of Mormon is the true word of God, and when he does, many will stand back in wonder at how they could have been so blind to the perfectly obvious.

Edited June 5, 2013 by teddyaware

[ERayR]

You should read it. Reading the "letter" while knowing for a surity it's a fraud gives what I believe is an interesting glimpse into the mind and workings of the devil.

In answer to your question: it's no secret that the occult ethos out of which the Book of Mormon supposedly emerged was known by some at the time Hofmann produced the forgery, and this occult angle had been a stock in trade amongst anti-Mormons for many decades. But my point is that the content of the Book of Mormon is far too spiritually profound, powerful, insightful, holy, wisdom-filled and Christ-centered to have been influenced in its production in any significant way by the seedy and dark world of the occult -- a world that places little, if any, significance on Jesus Christ and his atonement taught in purity.

For me, all things considered, the occult angle in the life of Joseph Smith just doesn't add up to anything more than what was probably just adolescent dabbling into the world of fantasy -- an amusement that was soon put aside as Young Joseph grew in grace and spiritual maturity.

I believe it's possible that one day the Lord Himself will challenge some of the unbelievers in the Book of Mormon by saying, "if you had only carefully read and pondered the Book of Mormon, and prayed unto me in faith and true sincerity of heart as you studied it, you would have known it was of God and not the work of sorcery." I believe that oneday the Lord will reveal, with great power and glory, that the Book of Mormon is the true word of God, and when he does, many will stand back in wonder at how they could have been so blind to the perfectly obvious.

I agree for the most part. What I would disagree on is the implication that the occult is necessarily bad. Here is the definition of occult from Wickipedia: The occult (from the Latin word occultus "clandestine, hidden, secret") is "knowledge of the hidden".^[1] In common English usage, occult refers to "knowledge of the paranormal", as opposed to "knowledge of the measurable",^[2][3] usually referred to as science. The term is sometimes taken to mean knowledge that "is meant only for certain people" or that "must be kept hidden", but for most practicing occultists it is simply the study of a deeper spiritual reality that extends beyond pure reason and the physical sciences.^[4] The terms esoteric and arcane have very similar meanings, and the three terms are interchangeable.

What is wrong with studying a deeper spiritual reality that extends beyond pure reason? I would say that it probably prepared him for what was to come. In modern times when we(as a people) worship science and technology, occult has been given an undesirable connotation.

[Tacenda]

No, I think Hoffman created the Salamander letter out of whole cloth. What is so surprising is that some believed it. I remember have a discussion with several other members at the time this came out and we all concluded that though we did not understand where it came from, it was not a reliable document and we all discounted it. That is not to say we as individuals cannot or could not be mislead, but this one was just a little too far out there. I agree that Dan is what Dan is; I just happen to disagree with him on a lot of things. My grandmother, God rest her soul, could douse for water, would throw salt over her left shoulder, and did not like black cats, but she was a fervent Christian. I would disagree with anyone that tried to make it out that her life was centered on the world of magic or anything similar. This entire topic bores me; it is conclusions made from whole cloth.

Thanks Stormrider, my grandma is from Kentucky and her mother converted to mormonism and brought her to Utah when she was 5, just the two of them and both were extremely superstitious.