Vogel'S Sunstone Presentation

[halconero]

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.

Do you have something I can read where it says that they simply forgot? That would be a lovely read.

[Dan Vogel]

Canard,

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.

It will be a distillation of my videos arranged chronologically. The fun part will be comments by Prince, Quinn, and the audience.

I quoted McLellin for his not hearing about angel ordination until the mid-1830s and that there was no need for such ordinations, that God’s command was sufficient. I support this view with the statements of John and David Whitmer as well as Lucy Smith and D&C 20. What other explanation is there for what early members believed without angel-ordination stories? The difference between Protestants and the Mormon restoration was that they had authority by direct revelation from God, in the form of the word of the Lord and angel visits in association with the coming forth of the BOM.

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.

I can’t ask any more of you than that you recognize that it is a real historical problem.

[Storm Rider]

Robert,

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.

This is not history, but rather opinion. Let history speak for itself without trying to make it more or less than it is. The way I see it is: "We can't know what really happened." "We can accumulate historical sources and we individually can make deductions from them, but that is all we can do as historians." History does not verify, excuse, or confirm reality.

[pmccombs1]

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,

Denver Snuffer tells a similar story about the events surrounding D&C section 110 and the visions recorded in that text. Are you familiar with his claims? They seem very characteristic of what you are describing regarding the restoration of the priesthood through angelic visitors. I see similarities in the evolution of the First Vision as well. Daymon Smith is also doing work on the cultural history of the Book of Mormon, and he is studying the influence of Sidney Rigdon and his followers who were looking for someone like Joseph Smith to head up their restorationist church. Do you see men like Rigdon as pivotal in the development of a "restoration genre" in the early years of the Church?

When the history is recounted today, it all has a very epiphanous feel to it, but in looking back on how this restoration story eventually emerged, it is very much a synthesis, or development over time.

[Dan Vogel]

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?

Calmoriah,

Normally I wouldn't object to this request, but it has been pretty much conceded by other apologists (e.g., Ron Barney and Richard Anderson), who have argued that JS had a habit of withholding visions. By changing the statement you wish to imply that the stories could have been told before 1834, just that no one chose to write about it. In this instance the evidence is very strong in favor of no one knowing about it except Smith and Cowdery, allegedly that is. The Whitmers and McLellin were leading authorities in the church, not some rank-and-file members living in another state or late converts. When they made their claims in public, no one came forward to challenge them. David Whitmer made his statement to early convert and Apostle Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith, who left it unchallenged. When Cowdery wrote the first published account in 1834 to W W Phelps in Missouri, he was also apparently unaware of the story. They are also missing from the foundational document of the restored church (D&C 20). Not only was JS and OC silent but the visions don’t fit in the 1829 setting.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Dan Vogel

[halconero]

Calmoriah,

Normally I wouldn't object to this request, but it has been pretty much conceded by other apologists (e.g., Ron Barney and Richard Anderson), who have argued that JS had a habit of withholding visions. By changing the statement you wish to imply that the stories could have been told before 1834, just that no one chose to write about it. In this instance the evidence is very strong in favor of no one knowing about it except Smith and Cowdery, allegedly that is. The Whitmers and McLellin were leading authorities in the church, not some rank-and-file members living in another state or late converts. When they made their claims in public, no one came forward to challenge them. David Whitmer made his statement to early convert and Apostle Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith, who left it unchallenged. When Cowdery wrote the first published account in 1834 to W W Phelps in Missouri, he was also apparently unaware of the story. They are also missing from the foundational document of the restored church (D&C 20). Not only was JS and OC silent but the visions don’t fit in the 1829 setting.

So then the question arises: did he forget to tell everyone? Or did he withhold his vision?

[Dan Vogel]

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.

You have to be anti-Mormon to believe JS was inconsistent? That explains your need to make sure JS remains consistent. That's quite a job you have taken on.

[canard78]

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.

Oliver was the first one to write up the account of the angel ordination in T&S in 1834. So no, I don't suppose he was surprised.

[Dan Vogel]

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.

Of course, Cowdery was a beneficiary of the announcement of angel ordinations. Only two months later he was ordained assistant president of the church.

[Dan Vogel]

Oliver was the first one to write up the account of the angel ordination in T&S in 1834. So no, I don't suppose he was surprised.

Actually, it was the Messenger and Advocate, Oct. 1834.

[Dan Vogel]

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.

Of course, you are merely arguing in circles:

The reason JS didn’t mention angel ordinations

Is because he didn’t take care to record them

How do you know JS didn’t take care to

Record them?

Because he didn’t record them.

Your whole line of argument is an assumption that angel ordinations occurred, but that is exactly the issue that needs evidence.

[halconero]

Dan, so far two habits of Joseph have been mentioned in this thread, one by you and one by myself. Namely, that he habitually withheld his visions from others and was not the best record keeper.

Would it be poor of me to infer that 1) He withheld his vision from others and 2) Never wrote the account down.

[stemelbow]

Of course, you are merely arguing in circles:

The reason JS didn’t mention angel ordinations

Is because he didn’t take care to record them

How do you know JS didn’t take care to

Record them?

Because he didn’t record them.

Your whole line of argument is an assumption that angel ordinations occurred, but that is exactly the issue that needs evidence.

Aren't you in the same boat?

The reason JS didn't mention angel ordinations is because they didn't happen?

How do we know they didn't happen?

Because he didn't mention them.

[Dan Vogel]

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.

Cowdery’s testimony was an uninterested witness, but he had benefited by going along with the sudden insertion of angel-ordination stories. He didn’t deny them when he was outside the church because he wasn’t angry at JS (who was not responsible for his excommunication) and it would have damaged his own reputation. Moreover, it would have damaged his BOM testimony, for which he was apparently sincere. When Cowdery came back to the Church in 1849 he confirmed angel ordinations, but he also uttered a lie that went back to 1830. He said he wrote the BOM as it fell from JS lips, who translated with the Nephite interpreters or spectacles. This was completely false and contradicted by all other witnesses, who state that JS used the seer stone in hat method during Cowdery’s tenure as scribe.

[Dan Vogel]

Aren't you in the same boat?

The reason JS didn't mention angel ordinations is because they didn't happen?

How do we know they didn't happen?

Because he didn't mention them.

My argument is more nuanced than that. I’m not relying on silence alone, but silence where a reasonable expectation exists for a mention had it existed. It’s not reasonable that such stories were withheld from those who functioned in the priesthood, or that they were not mentioned in the foundational document (D&C 20), or that converts didn’t understand the true authority by which they were being baptized. The accounts are full of anachronism as well, such as JS’s claim that John the Baptist in May 1829 uses the words “Priesthood of Aaron” and mentions the Levites. There was no Aaronic Priesthood until September 1832 (D&C 84).

[canard78]

Canard,

It will be a distillation of my videos arranged chronologically. The fun part will be comments by Prince, Quinn, and the audience.

I quoted McLellin for his not hearing about angel ordination until the mid-1830s and that there was no need for such ordinations, that God’s command was sufficient. I support this view with the statements of John and David Whitmer as well as Lucy Smith and D&C 20. What other explanation is there for what early members believed without angel-ordination stories? The difference between Protestants and the Mormon restoration was that they had authority by direct revelation from God, in the form of the word of the Lord and angel visits in association with the coming forth of the BOM.

I can’t ask any more of you than that you recognize that it is a real historical problem.

Thanks for getting back to me. It's a fair point that McLellin not a sole witness.

Frankly I find it odd that some people are not even willing to acknowledge the issues in the events as they transpire and come out.

[stemelbow]

Cowdery’s testimony was an uninterested witness, but he had benefited by going along with the sudden insertion of angel-ordination stories. He didn’t deny them when he was outside the church because he wasn’t angry at JS (who was not responsible for his excommunication) and it would have damaged his own reputation. Moreover, it would have damaged his BOM testimony, for which he was apparently sincere. When Cowdery came back to the Church in 1849 he confirmed angel ordinations, but he also uttered a lie that went back to 1830. He said he wrote the BOM as it fell from JS lips, who translated with the Nephite interpreters or spectacles. This was completely false and contradicted by all other witnesses, who state that JS used the seer stone in hat method during Cowdery’s tenure as scribe.

Cowdery's claim that there was angel-ordination is not true because he benefitted by going along with the stories.

How did he benefit? Because he said the made up stories were genuine.

Why wasn't Cowdery ready to admit the stories were made up when he was out of the Church?

Because it would have hurt his reputation. Therefore the stories were made up.

hmmm...

[stemelbow]

My argument is more nuanced than that. I’m not relying on silence alone, but silence where a reasonable expectation exists for a mention had it existed. It’s not reasonable that such stories were withheld from those who functioned in the priesthood, or that they were not mentioned in the foundational document (D&C 20), or that converts didn’t understand the true authority by which they were being baptized. The accounts are full of anachronism as well, such as JS’s claim that John the Baptist in May 1829 uses the words “Priesthood of Aaron” and mentions the Levites. There was no Aaronic Priesthood until September 1832 (D&C 84).

Its still circular. There are a lot of reasons why, if true, that converts didn't understand true authority by which they were being baptized. And if the accounts are after the fact, then anachronisms are also possible.

[Dan Vogel]

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.

I’m not giving a simple argument from silence. When you argue that my position is merely biased and not objective, you attempt to sidestep the issue and attack me. Stick with the evidence.

[Dan Vogel]

Do you have something I can read where it says that they simply forgot? That would be a lovely read.

Don't be silly!

[stemelbow]

I’m not giving a simple argument from silence. When you argue that my position is merely biased and not objective, you attempt to sidestep the issue and attack me. Stick with the evidence.

I'm not attacking you. Everyone carries bias. Do you deny that? ARe you claiming your studies and findings on this are completely objective? You seem to be doing the same as anyone who wishes to prove that angel ordinations happened. Just the opposite it seems to me. Every piece of data you look at seems to explain that it didn't happen from your perspective. For instance, Cowdery didn't admit it was a ruse when he was out of the Church because he didn't want his reputation tarnished, as opposed to the opposite side which would say Cowdery didn't admit the ruse because there was no ruse. he had every chance to admit it, but for the sake of integrity could not.

[canard78]

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.

It seems to be the only technique I see used when people respond to your content when shared on this board.

Like I said on another of your threads, I find the history of the Norman conquest particularly interesting but I don't limit my reading to historians who share the same religious world view as William 1,000 years ago. Most modern historians do not consider the appearance of Halley's to be a sign from God. Butt William did. Doesn't invalidate the historian.

[Dan Vogel]

This is not history, but rather opinion. Let history speak for itself without trying to make it more or less than it is. The way I see it is: "We can't know what really happened." "We can accumulate historical sources and we individually can make deductions from them, but that is all we can do as historians." History does not verify, excuse, or confirm reality.

As we have no direct access to historical events, all we have are the documents and reason. The interpretation that makes the strongest argument from those documents rightly deserves our respect. Those who favor marginal and unlikely interpretations deserve our contempt.

[stemelbow]

As we have no direct access to historical events, all we have are the documents and reason. The interpretation that makes the strongest argument from those documents rightly deserves our respect. Those who favor marginal and unlikely interpretations deserve our contempt.

Such is teh game of history. But, the problem is sometimes in all of this we're still left wondering what really did happen. Whose the best arguer, researcher, and most articulate well, inevitably, we crown champions for different seasons. And even those judgments are rather varied sometimes.

[Dan Vogel]

I'm not attacking you. Everyone carries bias. Do you deny that? ARe you claiming your studies and findings on this are completely objective? You seem to be doing the same as anyone who wishes to prove that angel ordinations happened. Just the opposite it seems to me. Every piece of data you look at seems to explain that it didn't happen from your perspective. For instance, Cowdery didn't admit it was a ruse when he was out of the Church because he didn't want his reputation tarnished, as opposed to the opposite side which would say Cowdery didn't admit the ruse because there was no ruse. he had every chance to admit it, but for the sake of integrity could not.

Your response here is quite funny. You were clearly using a subtle ad hominem argument. You said my work is biased, and to appear objective yourself you mentioned those who write faithful history. Then you said you wanted to find objective history. Now you are denying that such a thing exists so that you can justify dismissing my work as biased. Of course, everyone is biased, which doesn’t need pointing out since the only thing that matters is evidence and argument. The only people that bring up bias are those who are using it as a fallacious ad hominem argument.

My remarks about Cowdery were in response to your argument that he provides evidence supporting the claim of angelic ordination, when in fact he doesn’t. My objections to your evidence are perfectly reasonable and would be used in any other situation not involving supernatural claims.