Vogel'S Sunstone Presentation

[Dan Vogel]

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.

Of course, it’s not as arbitrary as you make it sound. Determining what “really happened” is a loaded phrase. It’s fine when used in either or situations, such as did angel ordinations really happen or where they later inventions? But even in situations where there is no doubt about what happened, can one ever say they know what “really” happened. No because nothing “really” happens, it just happens. Besides, “really” is a concept that is never satisfied, so the polemicist can fudge around forever.

[stemelbow]

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.

I didn't say your work is biased. I said your position appears biased. I have yet to view your work at all. And, as I said, I gladly welcome your work. At the very least, as it appears, it is in opposition to other work I have seen which is faithful. You have me all wrong. I welcome you to settle down a bit.

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.

Since I didn't use a fallacious ad hominem argument at all, Indeed I didn't even argue against your findings, I think your general statement is proven untrue. The only people who bring up bias are people. They aren't trying to attack you for saying you hold a bias just like everyone else. There really is no need to be so easily offended. I haven't yet seen your work. I have merely viewed your statements in this thread on the topic. The statements you've made int his thread don't seem to present a very strong case for your position. I realize mentioning that has terribly offended you, but that was not my intent. I'm merely saying, where you see evidence for your side, others view what you are using for your side and questioning whether you have such a strong case. my goodness, i was thinking I may indeed have time to venture over on the 2nd of August and sit in on your presentation, but if you're so touchy about people dropping questions on you, maybe I'll do something more fruitful with my time afterall.

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.

My arugment what? I think you've gotten a few of us confused, which is, indeed, quite reasonable since you've had some many different respondents in a short amount of time.

You've just used the term "facts" rather loosely in this sentence, I'd say. You're argument about Cowdery not revealing the ruse when he was out of teh Church because he didn't want to tarnish his reputation doesn't establish any facts here. It's merely your subjective opinion of the motives of Cowdery.

[stemelbow]

Of course, it’s not as arbitrary as you make it sound. Determining what “really happened” is a loaded phrase. It’s fine when used in either or situations, such as did angel ordinations really happen or where they later inventions? But even in situations where there is no doubt about what happened, can one ever say they know what “really” happened. No because nothing “really” happens, it just happens. Besides, “really” is a concept that is never satisfied, so the polemicist can fudge around forever.

lol. I can largely agree with what you're saying here. But the fudging around forever is true of any who also won't see themselves as polemicists as well. Sometimes it seems the studies in history are little but fudging around forever--that's why we have so many re-tellings it seems. The poor folks who we try to explain, or events we try to explain, are somewhere wondering who the garbage we all think we are. Or wait, why'd I say "we"? I'm not a historian.

Anyway, good luck to ya. Sorry to ruffle your feathers.

[Dan Vogel]

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.

No, I don’t know of Denver Snuffer. D&C 110 was written in JS’s journal at the time, but not published until years later when it was included in JS’s history. However, unlike the 1829/30 priesthood restorations, we have people discussing the 1836 vision claims, including non-Mormons. The First Vision definitely evolved. Although there were similarities to Rigdon’s restoration movement, in that SR wanted a more charismatic restoration than Campbell, I see nothing in the BOM that had to have come from Rigdon. I wish the Spaulding theory would just die.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Dan Vogel

[volgadon]

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

You areright, it is an historical problem. I think that it can be solved, but that is a different matter. Lets hope that the panel discussion brings something new to the table.

[Dan Vogel]

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...

There's nothing logical or accurate here.

[Dan Vogel]

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.

It's only circular in your misrepresentation of my arguments. I'm sure you are creative enough to invent excuses for converts not knowing the supposed angelic source of authority. Anything but admit there's a problem. These are serious anachronisms that happen to support later teachings.

[pmccombs1]

No, I don’t know of Denver Snuffer. D&C 110 was written in JS’s journal at the time, but not published until years later when it was included in JS’s history. However, unlike the 1829/30 priesthood restorations, we have people discussing the 1836 vision claims, including non-Mormons. The First Vision definitely evolved. Although there were similarities to Rigdon’s restoration movement, in that SR wanted a more charismatic restoration than Campbell, I see nothing in the BOM that had to have come from Rigdon. I wish the Spaulding theory would just die.

Snuffer isn't an Historian, I gather. He's a lawyer with a Church History "hobby." His beef with section 110 has specifically to do with the visitation of Elijah, which he claims is not actually being talked about by anybody in or after 1836 until that journal entry (written by Warren Cowdery) came to light in the mid 1850s. Your topic here reminded me of Snuffer's article.

I'm interested in Daymon Smith's work, and I think I misspoke when I associated Smith's research with making a Rigdonite connection. Actually, Daymon Smith views Mormonism as a branch of the Campbellite movement that had co-opted the Book of Mormon. Some of them thought it was the restoration miracle they were looking for. Smith's research in this area is newly published, and I haven't had a chance to read it yet. Well, I have some curiosity about the genesis of religious texts and stories, so I find these topics interesting.

[stemelbow]

It's only circular in your misrepresentation of my arguments. I'm sure you are creative enough to invent excuses for converts not knowing the supposed angelic source of authority. Anything but admit there's a problem. These are serious anachronisms that happen to support later teachings.

I have no idea what you're trying to attribute to me. I am not about not admitting there's a problem. I can see there's a problem. I have not said otherwise here. As I said, I think you've confused me with others--understandable.

It just so happens there very well could be reason enough as to why converts didn't know the source of the authority. I think it apparent you aren't really willing to discuss this, so much as talk at me. I'll gracious bow out at this point--hoping someone else can do better.

[Calm]

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

Is this mentioned by anyone else? And when did DW mention it first? If not mentioned by anyone else, it seems to me to establish a pattern at least for JS not mentioning all visitations as well as if there was a delay in mentioning it publicly (or at least in the records we now have) evidence of not sharing such information in what we see today as a timely manner, though of course the restoration would apparently have been more important with more reason to make known sooner.

[Calm]

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

Or did he make it up later on.

[Dan Vogel]

Stemelbow,

I didn't say your work is biased. I said your position appears biased

That would be a distinction without a difference. Why do think I need to settle down; I said I found your comments funny. I’m not riled in the least.

Since I didn't use a fallacious ad hominem argument at all, … There really is no need to be so easily offended. I haven't yet seen your work. I have merely viewed your statements in this thread on the topic. … I realize mentioning that has terribly offended you, but that was not my intent.

I’m not offended in the least. I was only bringing up ad hominem as a point of logic. You said:

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.

Hence, you divert attention away from my evidence and arguments to my “agenda driven opinion. This is how ad hominem (circumstantial) works.

[Calm]

Those who favor marginal and unlikely interpretations deserve our contempt.

Why contempt? Why not just ignore them or if necessary, point out where they are wrong and leave it at that?

[Dan Vogel]

Stemelbow,

my goodness, i was thinking I may indeed have time to venture over on the 2nd of August and sit in on your presentation, but if you're so touchy about people dropping questions on you, maybe I'll do something more fruitful with my time afterall.

You can do as you please, but you might want to apply your accusation of my being “touchy” to yourself.

My arugment what? I think you've gotten a few of us confused, which is, indeed, quite reasonable since you've had some many different respondents in a short amount of time.

Strappinglad (and Why Me) started using Cowdery not denying his testimony as evidence, then you picked up the argument to mock me.

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.

Then you said:

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.

This doesn’t make any sense. I was giving a reason for Cowdery’s not denying his testimony. The expectation that OC would have confessed if it were untrue is unreasonable. I’m not the one giving evidence here, but critiquing theirs. The point is that their attempt to present evidence in favor of angel ordination is badly conceived.

You've just used the term "facts" rather loosely in this sentence, I'd say. You're argument about Cowdery not revealing the ruse when he was out of teh Church because he didn't want to tarnish his reputation doesn't establish any facts here. It's merely your subjective opinion of the motives of Cowdery.

Look closely at what I wrote:

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.

Of course, I didn’t use “fact” in the historical or legal sense, and my remarks had nothing to do with Cowdery’s motives. But it is a fact that your attempt to use Cowdery’s interested testimony to establish the reality of the angel ordinations fails. Cowdery’s testimony can’t do that because it has been impeached.

[Dan Vogel]

Why contempt? Why not just ignore them or if necessary, point out where they are wrong and leave it at that?

OK, do that. But I notice that that is not what you do by being here.

[stemelbow]

Hence, you divert attention away from my evidence and arguments to my “agenda driven opinion. This is how ad hominem (circumstantial) works.

Sheesh I can't even state my impressions without you feeling slighted? I did not divert any attention away from your evidence. you have yet to present your evidence. I gave you my impressions. If you don't like my impressions based on what you said here, cool. But I gave it to you anyway. I meant no offense. I did not try to divert anyone away from your evidence at all. In fact, I gladly encourage people to attend your thingy.

[stemelbow]

Stemelbow,

You can do as you please, but you might want to apply your accusation of my being “touchy” to yourself.

Strappinglad (and Why Me) started using Cowdery not denying his testimony as evidence, then you picked up the argument to mock me.

I didn't mock you, Dan. I questioned what you were saying.

This doesn’t make any sense. I was giving a reason for Cowdery’s not denying his testimony. The expectation that OC would have confessed if it were untrue is unreasonable. I’m not the one giving evidence here, but critiquing theirs. The point is that their attempt to present evidence in favor of angel ordination is badly conceived.

I think it remains a good point. Cowdery didnt' deny it happened. You say, essentially, well that's not evidence because it could be that Cowdery didn't deny it because he didn't want to admit the truth and look bad by doing so. I would say that's a poor excuse for a denial is all. I mean no offense there, and I hope you don't take it as intended offense.

Of course, I didn’t use “fact” in the historical or legal sense, and my remarks had nothing to do with Cowdery’s motives. But it is a fact that your attempt to use Cowdery’s interested testimony to establish the reality of the angel ordinations fails. Cowdery’s testimony can’t do that because it has been impeached.

I'm getting to the point at a loss why I'm continuing to try here. I did not "attempt to use Cowdery's interested testimony to establish the reality of the angel ordinations". I explained that some on the opposite side of you, on this matter, will use Cowdery's non-denial as clear evidence for their position. I did not say that was my position, even. Did I? if I did, I did not intend to. I used this as an example of how two different people will likely view the why's and how's of historical events differently based on personal bias. That's all.

[Calm]

But I notice that that is not what you do by being here.

????

I am asking questions and discussing some, but how else does one find out what the good arguments are and which are the bad ones than through investigation?

If you think I am treating someone's comment/argument with contempt, I would be grateful to you pointing it out because that would be the furthest thing from my mind at the moment.

Edited July 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[stemelbow]

I don't get the treating others who disagree with you with contempt thing.

I suppose consider where each of us are coming from (which is to say from different places), it is common enough that each of us at some point will view someone's opinions or ideas as weak, wrong, or faulty. I see no reason whatever to look upon a person with contempt based on that though. Indeed, it may just be the problem with us that their views look wrong. Perhaps they hold the strongest position and we simply can't see it due to our own weakness.

[Calm]

I don't get the treating others who disagree with you with contempt thing.

I suppose consider where each of us are coming from (which is to say from different places), it is common enough that each of us at some point will view someone's opinions or ideas as weak, wrong, or faulty. I see no reason whatever to look upon a person with contempt based on that though. Indeed, it may just be the problem with us that their views look wrong. Perhaps they hold the strongest position and we simply can't see it due to our own weakness.

There are very few types of people in my life that I reserve the emotion "contempt" for, generally predators...that category of people doing intentional significant harm. It seems to me very much of an overreaction if used frequently.

Edited July 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[why me]

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

Why is this a problem? It may be due to the reaction that Joseph got to the book of mormon and the hostility of people that it brought. I don't think that silence would be a problem at all. And why brag about it?

The point is that Oliver never denied the experience.

[halconero]

Or did he make it up later on.

Nah.

[canard78]

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.

I don't need to use any other word. I know very well what consistent and inconsistent means.

Consistent is something that stays the same, stands firm, constantly adheres to the same course and form.

Did the Aug/Sep 1830 original revelation contain the angelic ordinations or not? Do any documents before 1834? Does the priesthood structure and the claimed source of priesthood change or remain the same?

[Ahab]

“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.

I'd drop the "Evolution" word in favor of "Progression", if I were you. Unless you're just looking to stir some speculation.

I like the phrase "reconstruct key changes" though. It is helpful to understand why the keys are and were necessary.

[Ahab]

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.

History, real history, is the story of what really happened, and yes we can know what happened as well as we know what is happening which a moment from now will be what has really happened.