Vogel'S Sunstone Presentation

[Dan Vogel]

“Evolution of Early Mormon Priesthood Narratives”

Dan Vogel

Gregory A. Prince

D. Michael Quinn

Sunstone 2013 Symposium

University of Utah

Olpin Student Union

Friday, August 2, 2:00-3:30 PM

Abstract: When Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery announced in the mid-1830s that they had been ordained by John the Baptist in May 1829 and subsequently by ancient apostles Peter, James, and John, it was a surprising disclosure—even for those who had been followers from the beginning. Our purpose is to discuss Joseph Smith’s original Authority claims, to reconstruct key changes, and to suggest why the stories of angelic ordination were introduced.

[Glenn101]

I would say that the angelic ordination was introduced because, well, just maybe because those angels visited them.

Of course, if one does not believe in angelic visitations and the restoration of the gospel, then you will have to look for a naturalistic explanation. The one I have read suffices me.

Glenn

[strappinglad]

With all the scientific talk about other dimensions and multiverses, I find angelic visitations just as 'natural' as any other event.

[altersteve]

Abstract: When Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery announced in the mid-1830s that they had been ordained by John the Baptist in May 1829 and subsequently by ancient apostles Peter, James, and John, it was a surprising disclosure—even for those who had been followers from the beginning.

Why is this a problem?

[canard78]

Why is this a problem?

Inconsistency. Joseph told plenty of people about Moroni's visit. But despite Joseph and Oliver having their ordinations in 1829, no mention of it is made until 1834 and they are not named until 1835.

It's not simply a case of it not being official, close friends and fellow leaders were not aware of it happening. Rigdon, who joined about 18 months after the ordination dates, says he had never heard them speak of it.

There are sections of D&C that are handwritten in 1830, published in a similar form in 1833 BoC but then rewritten for the 1835 D&C publication to include the angelic ordinations.

"D&C 27:8 Which John I have sent unto you, my servants, Joseph Smith, Jun., and Oliver Cowdery, to ordain you unto the first priesthood which you have received, that you might be called and ordained even as Aaron;"

This (and the other angels mentioned) do not exist in the first handwritten transcript in Revelation Book 2, now are they present in the BoC 1833 print. There is no original source for the interpolated versus. Even though the section heading is dated August and September 1830, this is misleading. Half of the section is more accurately dated as 1835.

Bear in mind that around 1835 Joseph took on the task of reviewing the 1833 sections and making changes. It has been claimed by certain later leaders (Elder Packer was one) that nothing significant was changed. This isn't correct. The addition of angelic ordinations of keys and authority into the 1835 version (but passing it off as an 1830 version) is pretty significant.

How did the changes come about? Different conclusions depending on your perspectives. I consider D&C 27 to be a 'smoking gun.' It's one of a few things I've never been able to satisfactorily resolve. It's 'shelved' for now and I try to ignore it.

But even with a belief in angelic visits if needed (so therefore not forced to explain away the claims on the basis on incredulity) I'd still say the evidence is stacked against Joseph and Oliver being visited by the 4 identified.

[canard78]

I would say that the angelic ordination was introduced because, well, just maybe because those angels visited them.

Of course, if one does not believe in angelic visitations and the restoration of the gospel, then you will have to look for a naturalistic explanation. The one I have read suffices me.

Glenn

That may apply to Vogel. But it doesn't apply to all who have issues with those claimed events.

I DO believe in a God that sends messengers but I still have issues with the history of the priesthood angelic ordinations.

[Robert F. Smith]

Inconsistency. Joseph told plenty of people about Moroni's visit. But despite Joseph and Oliver having their ordinations in 1829, no mention of it is made until 1834 and they are not named until 1835.

It's not simply a case of it not being official, close friends and fellow leaders were not aware of it happening. Rigdon, who joined about 18 months after the ordination dates, says he had never heard them speak of it.

There are sections of D&C that are handwritten in 1830, published in a similar form in 1833 BoC but then rewritten for the 1835 D&C publication to include the angelic ordinations.

"D&C 27:8 Which John I have sent unto you, my servants, Joseph Smith, Jun., and Oliver Cowdery, to ordain you unto the first priesthood which you have received, that you might be called and ordained even as Aaron;"

This (and the other angels mentioned) do not exist in the first handwritten transcript in Revelation Book 2, now are they present in the BoC 1833 print. There is no original source for the interpolated versus. Even though the section heading is dated August and September 1830, this is misleading. Half of the section is more accurately dated as 1835.

The revelation revisions (BofC, D&C, and MSS) have been well-known for over 30 years, so there is nothing new here. This is probably a panel based on the availability online of the results of the careful Joseph Smith Papers Project, and I see nothing wrong in another in a long line of considerations of the evidence. Perhaps a book will come out of it, but the theorizing will follow predictable and standard lines:

1. Some will be shocked that there was not a consistent, tidy, and predictable sequence in all of this.

Of course, in real life we do not have such historical consistency and sequential tidiness. Humans seldom function that way in modern times, not to mention in the early 19th century. Holding Joseph, Oliver, and the rest to such pristine and priggish standards is just not realistic. That's not the way real history takes place.

2. Others will insist that this was deliberate fraud, like the backdating of legal or financial documents on Wall Street nowadays. Joseph was a snake oil salesman, plain & simple.

3. The angels give it the air of a fairytale, and the Bible just doesn't allow things to be done that way, etc.

Such objections are tendentious and silly, given the nature of both the Bible and of reality as we empirically know it. These are apriori objections based on ignorance of reality.

Bear in mind that around 1835 Joseph took on the task of reviewing the 1833 sections and making changes. It has been claimed by certain later leaders (Elder Packer was one) that nothing significant was changed. This isn't correct. The addition of angelic ordinations of keys and authority into the 1835 version (but passing it off as an 1830 version) is pretty significant.

How did the changes come about? Different conclusions depending on your perspectives. I consider D&C 27 to be a 'smoking gun.' It's one of a few things I've never been able to satisfactorily resolve. It's 'shelved' for now and I try to ignore it.

But even with a belief in angelic visits if needed (so therefore not forced to explain away the claims on the basis on incredulity) I'd still say the evidence is stacked against Joseph and Oliver being visited by the 4 identified.

These changes were known among the Brethren even in Joseph's day, and many of them participated in making the changes for him. You talk as if this were done in secret in a corner somewhere, and as the if the Lord cannot be permitted to make progressive changes in His own revelations to accommodate new situations and understandings. Reminds me of Richard Bushman's recent comments at UVU during a public symposium. He recalled that when he rec'd Patriarchal Blessings as a stake patriarch, he would tape-record them and then later type them up himself. There were times, he said, when what came to him was momentarily beyond his capacity to put into the proper words. Only later, when typing it up was he able to phrase it appropriately. Once, when asked at CGU, how patriarchal blessings came to him, Bushman said, "I don't know. It just comes."

Because Vogel lives in a world in which such things are just not possible, of course he is going to call any such problem into question. That is understandable. What is not understandable is the notion that only history as Vogel formulates it can possibly be true.

[halconero]

One of the things Joseph often felt guilty for was not keeping a good record personally or as a Church as a whole.

I can sympathize as this is a fault that I share. There are things I should have recorded as a missionary, as a person, and in times past even at work. It doesn't mean that a particular miraculous lesson didn't happen, or that first time my girlfriend and I kissed was just a figment of my imagination, or that shipment of cherries (I work on a large farm) wasn't sent. It just means that it wasn't recorded. I did record the day I was endowed, but not in detail, and some of those details have been lost. It doesn't mean that it wasn't one of the most powerful spiritual moments of my life. With our mortal brain even the most significant minutes of our life can be lost if not recorded somewhere. And if there is an attempt to write it down later, especially years later, there will arise inconsistencies. These inconsistencies do not equate to lies, fabrications or untruths. I'm not excusing myself or Joseph, but this one fault of his may explain other faults along the way.

[canard78]

The revelation revisions (BofC, D&C, and MSS) have been well-known for over 30 years, so there is nothing new here.

It might be old news to the old hands in apologetics. I can assure you that it would be new news to many members today.

I was in Sunday School yesterday and the teacher said that the leadership and priesthood structure as we have today was sorted by 1835. I didn't have the heart to challenge this. Sometimes SS just isn't the place. In priesthood a life-long member was surprised to find out that tithing had been taught as a principle before Pres Snow (he thought Snow introduced it, not emphasised it).

On the subject of new news I did want to ask Dan whether there is any new news in the session or whether it's just a rehash of the content already covered in his videos. They're interesting, but I think he puts too much weight on McLellan who I'm not sure is a very reliable source.

This is probably a panel based on the availability online of the results of the careful Joseph Smith Papers Project, and I see nothing wrong in another in a long line of considerations of the evidence. Perhaps a book will come out of it, but the theorizing will follow predictable and standard lines:

1. Some will be shocked that there was not a consistent, tidy, and predictable sequence in all of this.

Of course, in real life we do not have such historical consistency and sequential tidiness. Humans seldom function that way in modern times, not to mention in the early 19th century. Holding Joseph, Oliver, and the rest to such pristine and priggish standards is just not realistic. That's not the way real history takes place.

2.

Indeed. But the fact that no-one had heard of it until 1834 is still a bit odd. Given he organised priesthood after 1829 and before 1834 and mentioned nothing of the source of his authority is a little odd at the least. He was certainly willing to make a big deal of the angelic involvement in the provenance of the BoM. Why so silent on the priesthood angels?

Others will insist that this was deliberate fraud, like the backdating of legal or financial documents on Wall Street nowadays. Joseph was a snake oil salesman, plain & simple.

I can understand that conclusion. I don't like it and it doesn't fit with the way I choose to view the foundational process. I consider it a more sincere origin than 'oil salesman/con-man.'

That's partly what stops me drawing the final conclusion that the Vogel leads to. I suppose ultimately what I believe and want Joseph to be doesn't fit with the Vogel view.

3. The angels give it the air of a fairytale, and the Bible just doesn't allow things to be done that way, etc.

Such objections are tendentious and silly, given the nature of both the Bible and of reality as we empirically know it. These are apriori objections based on ignorance of reality.

That's not a line of argument relevant to me. If someone doesn't believe in God. Or at least not in in one who sends heavenly messengers to anyone at all then they have a very limited list of conclusions: deception or delusion. I do however believe in a God/angels like that so don't get driven into a corner.

These changes were known among the Brethren even in Joseph's day, and many of them participated in making the changes for him. You talk as if this were done in secret in a corner somewhere, and as the if the Lord cannot be permitted to make progressive changes in His own revelations to accommodate new situations and understandings.

There were many things that Joseph's followers supported that we may scratch our heads at. Of their paradigm was similar to some members then it would have made little difference how much he changed - he's prophet they'd say... So what.

In our century there have been at least two (and probably more) conference talks that have been either heavily redacted, re-filmed or even cut from the report completely and none of the members who watched live seemed bothered by the inconsistency with the final written version.

But the fact remains: D&C 27 originally had no reference to John the Baptist, Peter, James and John. Despite the claim that it was revealed in Sep 1830, there's really no evidence that the version published 5 years later was the one he had in 1830.

And as I'm sure you're aware, David Whitmer had quote a lot to say about his surprise about it coming out in 1834/35.

"...neither did I ever hear of such a thing as an angel ordaining them until I got into Ohio about the year 1834--or later. Oliver stated to me in Joseph's presence that they had baptized each other--seeking by that to fulfill the command. And after our arrival at fathers sometime in June 1829, Joseph ordained Oliver to be an Elder, and Oliver ordained Joseph to be an Elder in the Church of Christ."

-- David Whitmer, David Whitmer Interviews, page 154.

Reminds me of Richard Bushman's recent comments at UVU during a public symposium. He recalled that when he rec'd Patriarchal Blessings as a stake patriarch, he would tape-record them and then later type them up himself. There were times, he said, when what came to him was momentarily beyond his capacity to put into the proper words. Only later, when typing it up was he able to phrase it appropriately. Once, when asked at CGU, how patriarchal blessings came to him, Bushman said, "I don't know. It just comes."

Because Vogel lives in a world in which such things are just not possible, of course he is going to call any such problem into question. That is understandable. What is not understandable is the notion that only history as Vogel formulates it can possibly be true.

Like I said, I don't share Vogel's conclusion. But I still find very few satisfactory answers to the issues he raises beyond "history doesn't get recorded in that way."

[Calm]

But the fact that no-one had heard of it until 1834 is still a bit odd.

Besides David Whitmer, who else had not heard of it?

Can we say for certain no-one had heard of it instead of saying there was no record of anyone hearing of it?

[canard78]

Besides David Whitmer, who else had not heard of it?

Can we say for certain no-one had heard of it instead of saying there was no record of anyone hearing of it?

Ok, let me rephrase... There's no evidence of it being mentioned or known before 1834. I'm not aware of it appearing in any journal entries/letters/articles before then. Evidence points towards it being 'new news' in 1834/5.

That's not proof it didn't happen in 1829, but there's little to evidence that it was mentioned.

David Whitmer is probably the best placed of all people to have known. The AP restoration is dated as May 1829. The angel showing him and Cowdery the plates happened about a month later - June/July 1829.

Whitmer also claimed to have had a vision/visitation of a Nephite with Joseph Smith, in 1829, before the vision of the plates.

With all this acceptance of visions and angels there seems little reason to have withheld it from Whitmer. And yet he's sceptical.

[cdowis]

Inconsistency. Joseph told plenty of people about Moroni's visit. But despite Joseph and Oliver having their ordinations in 1829, no mention of it is made until 1834 and they are not named until 1835.

It's not simply a case of it not being official, close friends and fellow leaders were not aware of it happening. Rigdon, who joined about 18 months after the ordination dates, says he had never heard them speak of it.

Your definition of "inconsistency" -- have you looked it up in the dictionary? Please show how this contradicts itself.

You need to use another word -- "progressive", "update", "revision". The word "inconsistent" is not appropriate to your post, and sounds very, well, antiMormon.

Edited July 15, 2013 by cdowis

[strappinglad]

Seems to me there was another individual who was more aware than DW, ie. Oliver . Did he ever express 'surprise' at being told he was ordained by angels? Did he, after being exed, state that there were no angels involved? Did he balk at the changes in the D&C? No?. Well,there is some evidence for you.

[why me]

One of the things Joseph often felt guilty for was not keeping a good record personally or as a Church as a whole.

I can sympathize as this is a fault that I share. There are things I should have recorded as a missionary, as a person, and in times past even at work. It doesn't mean that a particular miraculous lesson didn't happen, or that first time my girlfriend and I kissed was just a figment of my imagination, or that shipment of cherries (I work on a large farm) wasn't sent. It just means that it wasn't recorded. I did record the day I was endowed, but not in detail, and some of those details have been lost. It doesn't mean that it wasn't one of the most powerful spiritual moments of my life. With our mortal brain even the most significant minutes of our life can be lost if not recorded somewhere. And if there is an attempt to write it down later, especially years later, there will arise inconsistencies. These inconsistencies do not equate to lies, fabrications or untruths. I'm not excusing myself or Joseph, but this one fault of his may explain other faults along the way.

We need to put ourselves in Joseph's place. He was experiencing something extraordinary. i am sure that he never thought about keeping an exact record of the events. Thus, we have various accounts of the first vision. He was doing what he needed to do---restoring the church of christ and leading the saints. Also, he never would have seen the day when his every word, his every deed would be so acutely observed many many years later. He had a mission to perform and this was his concern... to do it well.

But yes, it would have been great if he would have took more care.

[why me]

Seems to me there was another individual who was more aware than DW, ie. Oliver . Did he ever express 'surprise' at being told he was ordained by angels? Did he, after being exed, state that there were no angels involved? Did he balk at the changes in the D&C? No?. Well,there is some evidence for you.

But this is overlooked by critics. Also, that he came back to the fold and bore his testimony on his deathbed as did many of the witnesses. Oliver is certainly interesting. He did not agree with Joseph Smith and so he left the fold. But he could not deny the spiritual experiences that he had. So, he eventually returned to the fold and was warmly welcomed. He also bore his testimony to the members of his experiences when he returned.

[why me]

And as I'm sure you're aware, David Whitmer had quote a lot to say about his surprise about it coming out in 1834/35.

I may have been a little shy about telling people of such an experience. We need to remember that they already were taking flak about their other spiritual experiences. I may have been somewhat quiet about it too.

[Dan Vogel]

I would say that the angelic ordination was introduced because, well, just maybe because those angels visited them.

Of course, if one does not believe in angelic visitations and the restoration of the gospel, then you will have to look for a naturalistic explanation. The one I have read suffices me.

Glenn

The problem is that there isn't just one version. I try to reconstruct the development of the early Mormon concept of authority and show that the stories are anachronistic and problematic. It's not as simple as accepting Smith and Cowdery's stories or not.

[Dan Vogel]

With all the scientific talk about other dimensions and multiverses, I find angelic visitations just as 'natural' as any other event.

Surely you exaggerate!

[Questing Beast]

...

How did the changes come about? Different conclusions depending on your perspectives. I consider D&C 27 to be a 'smoking gun.' It's one of a few things I've never been able to satisfactorily resolve. It's 'shelved' for now and I try to ignore it.

...

And you fail to ignore it, I'd say. since, here it is, described succinctly by you....

[Dan Vogel]

Why is this a problem?

The problem is in accounting for the silence. There are other problems as well.

[halconero]

We need to put ourselves in Joseph's place. He was experiencing something extraordinary. i am sure that he never thought about keeping an exact record of the events. Thus, we have various accounts of the first vision. He was doing what he needed to do---restoring the church of christ and leading the saints. Also, he never would have seen the day when his every word, his every deed would be so acutely observed many many years later. He had a mission to perform and this was his concern... to do it well.

But yes, it would have been great if he would have took more care.

What I said wasn't so much a criticism as an expression of sympathy. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

[Dan Vogel]

Robert,

Because Vogel lives in a world in which such things are just not possible, of course he is going to call any such problem into question. That is understandable. What is not understandable is the notion that only history as Vogel formulates it can possibly be true.

We can’t know what really happened, only that experience teaches us to respect the best construal of the historical sources. You don’t have to believe in supernaturalism to understand what Bushman was talking about. Any writer experiences this on a regular basis. But does it excuse the problems with priesthood restoration. Not even remotely. You are cordially invited to attend and hear my reasons.

[Dan Vogel]

That may apply to Vogel. But it doesn't apply to all who have issues with those claimed events.

I DO believe in a God that sends messengers but I still have issues with the history of the priesthood angelic ordinations.

The fact that this criticism doesn't apply to everyone equally is an indication that they are attempting use ad hominem based on personal circumstances.

[Dan Vogel]

One of the things Joseph often felt guilty for was not keeping a good record personally or as a Church as a whole.

I can sympathize as this is a fault that I share. There are things I should have recorded as a missionary, as a person, and in times past even at work. It doesn't mean that a particular miraculous lesson didn't happen, or that first time my girlfriend and I kissed was just a figment of my imagination, or that shipment of cherries (I work on a large farm) wasn't sent. It just means that it wasn't recorded. I did record the day I was endowed, but not in detail, and some of those details have been lost. It doesn't mean that it wasn't one of the most powerful spiritual moments of my life. With our mortal brain even the most significant minutes of our life can be lost if not recorded somewhere. And if there is an attempt to write it down later, especially years later, there will arise inconsistencies. These inconsistencies do not equate to lies, fabrications or untruths. I'm not excusing myself or Joseph, but this one fault of his may explain other faults along the way.

With such a generalized excuse, how do you ever uncover lies, fabrications or untruths? What method would you use to expose such things? It's not just a matter of forgetting to record things; it's more complex than that. For example, JS and OC forgot to record it in the Articles and Covenants (D&C 20). They also forgot to tell those who held the authority for five years.

[stemelbow]

With such a generalized excuse, how do you ever uncover lies, fabrications or untruths? What method would you use to expose such things? It's not just a matter of forgetting to record things; it's more complex than that. For example, JS and OC forgot to record it in the Articles and Covenants (D&C 20). They also forgot to tell those who held the authority for five years.

That may be, but it seems this type of position adds another dimension. YOu seem to suggest then, if we cannot find it in the historical record that means it did not happen as it was reported by those in position to actually know. Its a very, "let's explain away religion" stance. I mean have at it, but it seems too agenda driven for my tastes. I certainly wish there is a more objective driven movement out there, though. At least your counter-balancing the faith-driven. That's something.