Vogel'S Sunstone Presentation

[canard78]

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.

Can I check I've understood you right? You're saying Dan is biased but have not read/viewed any of his arguments?

Why do you feel able to make a comment on his work as a historian if you've not read his work to evaluate how much his bias impacts his conclusions.

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.

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 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.

You can watch the two YouTube videos for free on the topic. Why not actually refute the evidence presented rather than have a go at Dan's position?

I do not share Dan's bias. But I find the evidence presented hard to refute. I am yet to see a strong argument that does.

Everything I've read to respond is either:

- History doesn't work like that

Or

- Oliver could have denied it later and didn't.

Neither of these explain why it took 5 years for any mention of some of the most significant events in the restoration to be made.

[canard78]

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.

So what really happened in May/June 1829? Did angels ordain Joseph and Oliver?

[Ahab]

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

As if someone who was ordained by an angel shouldn't be called to a fairly high position in the Church?

Would you be happier if the angel had ordained him to a lower office, or if Oliver was ordained but not called to any office?

[Ahab]

So what really happened in May/June 1829? Did angels ordain Joseph and Oliver?

The Church history records are pretty clear on that point, and the record is true. Yes, they were ordained by John (called the Baptist in the NT) under the direction of Peter, James and John (an apostle) with each administering the ordination for each other.

[Ahab]

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.

Joseph later gave his testimony that it had occurred, so you have that evidence in his writings now, and through the power of the Holy Ghost you can also receive a testimony from God to assure you that what they have said is true. You need to get that, and then once you do, if you do, you will then know what is true as I know it.

[Calm]

The Church history records are pretty clear on that point, and the record is true. Yes, they were ordained by John (called the Baptist in the NT) under the direction of Peter, James and John (an apostle) with each administering the ordination for each other.

In your opinion then, why didn't it get announced and/or recorded soon thereafter, especially as they were using the Priesthood?

Dan or Canard, I can't remember if this was discussed already, but what was the rationale given for being able to ordain men to the Priesthood at that time prior to the announcement of the visitations?

Edited July 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[Ahab]

In your opinion then, why didn't it get announced and/or recorded soon thereafter, especially as they were using the Priesthood?

We don't know they didn't announce it soon after. They could have announced it soon after without putting it in writing that they had announced it earlier, or without their earlier announcements being recorded, or with it being recorded and those records later being lost or misplaced. Or, maybe they didn't announce it earlier, not thinking it was necessary to point out the specifics of how they received their ordination, and keys. They could have thought it was enough to say they were ordained by God, without feeling the need to mention they were ordained by God through the administration of angels/messengers sent down here to do that for God, and then as time went on they could have seen how it would be helpful to point out exactly how God ordains others through angels/messengers sent from his presence to men on Earth who can then ordain other men to the priesthood. The most important fact is that God ordained them, however he did it, and what that ordination from God gave them the authority for.

Btw, I often don't mention when and where I was ordained, even though my ordination was as important and effectual as an ordination from an angel, because it still comes from God through succession and for my progression, even though sometimes I do mention it in some of my sermons.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Ahab

[Danzo]

Can I check I've understood you right? You're saying Dan is biased but have not read/viewed any of his arguments?

Why do you feel able to make a comment on his work as a historian if you've not read his work to evaluate how much his bias impacts his conclusions.

You can watch the two YouTube videos for free on the topic. Why not actually refute the evidence presented rather than have a go at Dan's position?

I do not share Dan's bias. But I find the evidence presented hard to refute. I am yet to see a strong argument that does.

Everything I've read to respond is either:

- History doesn't work like that

Or

- Oliver could have denied it later and didn't.

Neither of these explain why it took 5 years for any mention of some of the most significant events in the restoration to be made.

Why assume that Joseph and Oliver understood the significance of what happened when it happened.

What if they learned about it later and then understood their experience in that light. I don't think that all of the information was downloaded to Joseph in his first vision. Perhaps they didn't feel the need to share it until that point.

Or you can assume that Joseph and Oliver were just a couple of con artists seeing how much they could get away with.

[canard78]

As if someone who was ordained by an angel shouldn't be called to a fairly high position in the Church?

Would you be happier if the angel had ordained him to a lower office, or if Oliver was ordained but not called to any office?

But have you read the full story?

It's the timing of his elevation that causes some people consternation.

"At the organization of the church in 1830, Cowdery had been designated the "second elder" of the church.[2] After Smith organized the First Presidency in 1832, Cowdery's standing in the church hierarchy had become uncertain. Cowdery's ordination as Assistant President reaffirmed his status as second only to Smith in church authority."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cowdery

He was ordained within months of the angelic ordination started coming out and he was first to mention the angel ordination (in T&S).

There's D&C 20 to take into account. April 1830. No origin cited of power other than God/Holy Ghost. An Apostle is an Elder.

Then in Section 21 we've got Jospeh and Oliver ordaining each other apostles/Elders.

But the interpolated verses in section 27 says that Peter, James and John had done that. It also mentions the 'priesthood of Aaron from JtB.' No mention of Aaronic priesthood was made in section 20, even though the two sections are supposed to have been revealed just months apart.

[Glenn101]

But have you read the full story?

It's the timing of his elevation that causes some people consternation.

"At the organization of the church in 1830, Cowdery had been designated the "second elder" of the church.[2] After Smith organized the First Presidency in 1832, Cowdery's standing in the church hierarchy had become uncertain. Cowdery's ordination as Assistant President reaffirmed his status as second only to Smith in church authority."

http://en.m.wikipedi.../Oliver_Cowdery

He was ordained within months of the angelic ordination started coming out and he was first to mention the angel ordination (in T&S).

There's D&C 20 to take into account. April 1830. No origin cited of power other than God/Holy Ghost. An Apostle is an Elder.

Then in Section 21 we've got Jospeh and Oliver ordaining each other apostles/Elders.

But the interpolated verses in section 27 says that Peter, James and John had done that. It also mentions the 'priesthood of Aaron from JtB.' No mention of Aaronic priesthood was made in section 20, even though the two sections are supposed to have been revealed just months apart.

This is all a rehashing of rehashed stuff. You will find nothing new, unless they have uncovered a document which purports to be the revelation from Peter, James, and John restoring the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Chapter 21 was about the organization of the church and Joseph being ordained the first elder and Oliver the second. It was in this section also that the Lord admonished the church to keep (better?) records.

As hasbeen stated, your mileage will vary according to your faith.

Glenn

[cdowis]

But the interpolated verses in section 27 says that Peter, James and John had done that. It also mentions the 'priesthood of Aaron from JtB.' No mention of Aaronic priesthood was made in section 20, even though the two sections are supposed to have been revealed just months apart.

All of this is examined in detail in the Joseph Smith Papers project. Basically, there is a difference between receiving revelations and preparing them for publication. Multiple revelations, for example, were combined into an individual published as necessary. Again, the JS Papers project document this in detail.

These events were coming very quickly, and JS and the leaders were focusing on administering the church. The historical documentation came later.

It was simply a matter of priorities. Eventually a church historian was called to carry out the duty to formally record and organize the history of the church.

Edited July 16, 2013 by cdowis

[canard78]

In your opinion then, why didn't it get announced and/or recorded soon thereafter, especially as they were using the Priesthood?

Dan or Canard, I can't remember if this was discussed already, but what was the rationale given for being able to ordain men to the Priesthood at that time prior to the announcement of the visitations?

I appreciate that I'm fence sitting a little here. I'm trying to follow the good advice of others on this board and shift paradigms.

Having said that, priesthood ordination, like Gold plates, are a little difficult to have a nuanced view over. There isn't much middle ground. I see strong evidence that the 1834 addition is not grounded in an actual event but I fall short of calling them con-men and fabricators. Pious fraud? I don't much like that either. Pious or not, it's still fraud.

In some ways I'm trying to let the conclusion draw itself rather than giving evidence based on a conclusion. I'm in a situation of saying JS and OC may or may not have have been ordained by angels. I accept both as possible situations.

To answer the question, it seems that the authority/power is usually referenced as a bestowal from the heavens, not an actual linear 'hand to head' ordination in the first instance.

Section 20:

6 But after repenting, and humbling himself sincerely, through faith, God ministered unto him by an holy angel, whose countenance was as lightning, and whose garments were pure and white above all other whiteness;

7 And gave unto him commandments which inspired him;

8 And gave him power from on high, by the means which were before prepared, to translate the Book of Mormon;

...

27 As well as those who should come after, who should believe in the gifts and callings of God by the Holy Ghost, which beareth record of the Father and of the Son;

What's the power spoken of in v. 8? Just the power to translate? Maybe, especially as Oliver is told (Sec 10): "2 And then, behold, other records have I, that I will give unto you power that you may assist to translate."

Is prophetic translation not done by priesthood power? King Mosiah is described as having "a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings" - so maybe it's a gift of the spirit.

There's also the power of God spoken of in section 11

21 Seek not to declare my word, but first seek to obtain my word, and then shall your tongue be loosed; then, if you desire, you shall have my Spirit and my word, yea, the power of God unto the convincing of men.

We so also read of authority to act in God's name in D&C 20

73 The person who is called of God and has authority from Jesus Christ to baptize, shall go down into the water with the person who has presented himself or herself for baptism, and shall say, calling him or her by name: Having been commissioned...

So there's lots of talk around 1829/1830 of having power and authority bestowed from God to act in his name. No-one seems to question where that came from in the first instance.

If God gives a person power/authority to act on his behalf, why does it even need a man to give it? Why is a resurrected apostle needed to give the Melchizedek priesthood? It's God's power, it seems he has given gifts and power to people before without a human doing it. No-one in 1829/30 seemed bothered about the source of Joseph's power/authority to lead and ordain other leaders. Why not? Maybe he'd mentioned the angels verbally and no-one else mentioned it for 5 years (unlikely with all the journals/letters/missionary pamphlets). More likely that people just accepted Joseph got his power from God.

[canard78]

All of this is examined in detail in the Joseph Smith Papers project. Basically, there is a difference between receiving revelations and preparing them for publication. Multiple revelations, for example, were combined into an individual published as necessary. Again, the JS Papers project document this in detail.

These events were coming very quickly, and JS and the leaders were focusing on administering the church. The historical documentation came later.

It was simply a matter of priorities. Eventually a church historian was called to carry out the duty to formally record and organize the history of the church.

Section 27 isn't just a case of adding a bit to the end. You can see the original handwritten version on JSP.

The additions have no original source. Maybe they've been lost of course.

But it's not the only issue.

We have no reference anywhere until 1834 of JtB/PJJ ordaining. If we had other 1830 references to the angelic ordination it might be more reasonable to accept that the 1835 addition the S27 actually comes from an 1830 source. In fact, finding that source would put to rest most of the the '1834 fabrication' arguments. But there isn't and instead it stands as evidence for fabrication/rewriting history.

Do you have any sources showing people except Joseph/Oliver knew about the angelic priesthood ordination in 1830?

[canard78]

This is all a rehashing of rehashed stuff. You will find nothing new, unless they have uncovered a document which purports to be the revelation from Peter, James, and John restoring the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Chapter 21 was about the organization of the church and Joseph being ordained the first elder and Oliver the second. It was in this section also that the Lord admonished the church to keep (better?) records.

As hasbeen stated, your mileage will vary according to your faith.

Glenn

So what if it's old stuff? It's old to you. Like I said, it would be news to most members.

It remains asked and unanswered.

Joseph wrote a history in 1832, is it in there (I know it ends too early in the narrative)?

John Whitmer started a church history in 1830, which starts with Moroni's vision as the foundation? Does he mention it?

Anything in letters/missionary tracts from the early 1830s?

He published the BoC in 1833, is it in there?

I don't see how something being 'old news' invalidates the need to answer the issues.

[canard78]

Why assume that Joseph and Oliver understood the significance of what happened when it happened.

What if they learned about it later and then understood their experience in that light. I don't think that all of the information was downloaded to Joseph in his first vision. Perhaps they didn't feel the need to share it until that point.

Or you can assume that Joseph and Oliver were just a couple of con artists seeing how much they could get away with.

Why make it so black and white? Either prophet who is right in all things or con-artist. It's this kind of dichotomy that makes people leave when troubles come.

Is that the best possible answer? They didn't consider it important enough to mention to anyone for 5 years?

John ordains them with these words:

1 Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.

Joseph is also told this (apparently in 1830, but unrecorded until 1835)

D&C 27:

12 And also with Peter, and James, and John, whom I have sent unto you, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles, and especial witnesses of my name, and bear the keys of your ministry and of the same things which I revealed unto them;

13 Unto whom I have committed the keys of my kingdom, and a dispensation of the gospel for the last times; and for the fulness of times, in the which I will gather together in one all things, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth;

But you think with all this instruction they didn't understand the significance of it?

What evidence do you have of this? Or are you simply trying to create an explanation for a conclusion you reached without knowing the facts?

People dismiss Vogel because of his bias. The same can be said for a lot (not all) Mormon apologetics. They look for evidence based on a conclusion they reached before considering all the evidence.

Give me your evidence and allow me to make my own conclusion. I've seen no evidence that JS/OC realised the significance of the event in 1834 and that this was why they only started mentioning it then.

Edited July 16, 2013 by canard78

[Jude2]

Back on Jan 17th Dan started a thread about his video on the Priesthood Restoration. I’m assuming this “Evolution of Early Mormon Priesthood Narratives” he will give at Sunstone goes down the same line so I’m going to re-post my thoughts at the time. I hope that's okay. This will cover posting 54, 55 and 56.

http://www.mormondia...on/page__st__40

My posting #54

I post this with the greatest of intimation because I know there are some here with much greater knowledge of the scriptures and of the history of the Church than I, but here it goes.

As a devout Mormon I understand and accept the notion that we learn line upon line and God doesn’t just pour knowledge upon us. I can understand if it took time for Joseph to know the ends and outs of how the priesthood should be organized. The fact that he did so so perfectly is a miracle in and of itself.

But;

I’ve been thinkin about this video; doing some rereading and some pondering. I’ve been comparing D&C 20 (and The Book of Commandments sec 24) written in 1830 to Joseph Smith’s history starting with verse 66.

I’m going to purpose that Vogel’s conclusions about sec 20 are all wrong and quite the opposite is true. Instead of sec 20 not mentioning the priesthood restoration with John the Baptist, Peter, James and John I think it is exactly what Joseph is talking about.

If Joseph and Oliver were under the same orders as Peter, James and John not to talk about their experience and Joseph did write;

“In the meantime we were forced to keep secret the circumstances of having received the Priesthood and our having been baptized, owing to a spirit of persecution which had already manifested itself in the neighborhood”

could this April 1830 revelation be a veiled reference to the priesthood restoration?

I asked myself several questions;

1, Vogel insist that the phrase “the ministering of angels” in ves 10 of sec 20 is a generic term for any angel’s visit but what if it is not and alludes to the visit by John the Baptist, and then Peter, James and John.

I crossed reverenced the term and can’t really find a time where it is used for just one angel but found this;

D&C 107

20 The power and authority of the lesser, or Aaronic Priesthood, is to hold the keys of the ministering of angels….

2, Instead, what if the phrase “….whose countenance was as lightning, and whose garments were pure and white above all other whiteness…” is generic for how all angels are described and not just the Angel Moroni? Throughout the Book of Mormon and the D&C the words garments, pure, white and whiteness are used a number of times together;

“…. and behold they were as white as the countenance and also the garments of Jesus; and behold the whiteness thereof did exceed all the whiteness, yea, even there could be nothing upon earth so white as the whiteness thereof…” 3 Nephi 19:25

Oliver described John the Baptist visit like this;

“On a sudden, as from the midst of eternity, the voice of the Redeemer spake peace to us, while the veil was parted and the angel of God came down clothed with glory… our eyes beheld, our ears heard, as in the ‘blaze of day’; yes, more—above the glitter of the May sunbeam, which then shed its brilliancy over the face of nature!”

He’s much more poetic than Joseph.

3, Then I asked what is the time period for verses 5 &6?

“After it was truly manifested unto this first elder that he had received a remission of his sins, he was entangled again in the vanities of the world But after repenting, and humbling himself sincerely, through faith,….”

So does the ‘entangled again’ mean the time period between his first vision and the angel Moroni where he acknowledges he was led into youthful

“…divers temptations, offensive in the sight of God”

Or could it be after he had his vision of Moroni and when he

"….transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men" D&C 3

“the vanities of the world” leads me to believe it was referring to “the persuasions of men” so the latter. In that case the angel sent could only mean John the Baptist.

4, Then I asked what is the 20th section really about?

“The rise of the Church of Christ in these last days …by the will and commandments of God. Which commandments were given to Joseph Smith, Jun., who was called of God, and ordained an apostle of Jesus Christ, to be the first elder of this church”

So it is establishing the fact that Joseph had not only the commandment to but the authority to organize the Church. In his history he says John told him he would be ordained by Peter, James and John to be first elder but it never says when it occurred.

In the Book of Commandments the phrase “the first elder” is not there, but wasn’t he the first ordained elder? I don’t get the objection here.

Although sec 20 does not mention the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood Joseph does separate the two, he gives the Elders all of the same authority the lesser priesthood has and adds “And to confirm the church by the laying on of the hands, and the giving of the Holy Ghost, and to take the lead of all meetings.” (Book of Commandments Sec 24) So he does understand the higher and lower authorities.

5, Going back to verse 6

“But after repenting, and humbling himself sincerely, through faith, God ministered unto him by an holy angel …And gave unto him commandments which inspired him; And gave him power from on high, by the means which were before prepared, to translate the Book of Mormon”

I believe it’s always been assumed this meant only the Urim and Thummim” but what if he meant John the Baptist and the power of the Aaronic Priesthood and the Holy Ghost as it fell upon them like it did to Cornelius.

Look at what Joseph writes in his history after this visitation;

“73 No sooner had I baptized Oliver Cowdery, than the Holy Ghost fell upon him, and he stood up and prophesied …..And again, so soon as I had been baptized by him, I also had the spirit of prophecy…..

Does the phrase in vs. 6 “which inspired him” referred this ability to prophesy?

6, At the end of vers 73 he adds another statement;

"We were filled with the Holy Ghost, and rejoiced in the God of our salvation".

Does this “filled with the Holy Ghost” refer (ever so slightly I admit) to “the power from on high” and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost which only the Higher Melchizedek could give?

He goes on in his history;

74 Our minds being now enlightened, we began to have the scriptures laid open to our understandings, and the true meaning and intention of their more mysterious passages revealed unto us in a manner which we never could attain to previously, nor ever before had thought of.”

It seems to me he is talking about the Holy Ghost.

Is there anyway to know for sure just at what point in the Book of Mormon Oliver took over as scribe. He started writing on April 7, in May they were baptized and they were done with the Book of Mormon sometime in June, seems like they must have been moving along at quite a clip.

7, Now let’s look at verses 8-10 again

“8 And gave him power from on high (the Holy Ghost), by the means (of the Urim and Thummim) which were before prepared, to translate the Book of Mormon;

9 Which contains a record of a fallen people, and the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles and to the Jews also;

10 Which was given by inspiration (of the Holy Ghost), and is confirmed to others by the ministering of angels (Moroni, John the Baptist, Peter, James and John) and is declared unto the world by them.

I might be stretching it a bit but it does seem as early as 1830 Joseph is talking about the restoration of the Priesthood without talking about it.

Dan Vogel then said in posting 55

“…..you are trying to read later concepts into earlier documents.”

And I replied;

No I think not, I’m looking at it as Joseph explaining things after the fact because at the time he was under commandment not to.

Look at sec 23 of the Book of Commandments

A Commandment unto the church of Christ, which was established in these last days, ….. in consequence of some desiring to unite with the church without re- baptism, who had previously been baptized.

23:1 Behold I say unto you, that all old covenants have I caused to be done away in this thing, and this is a new and everlasting covenant; even that which was from the beginning.

23:2 Wherefore although a man should be baptized an hundred times, it availeth him nothing;

23:3 For you cannot enter in at the straight gate by the law of Moses, neither by your dead works;

23:4 For it is because of your dead works, that I have caused this last covenant, and this church to be built up unto me; even as in days of old.

23:5 Wherefore enter ye in at the gate, as I have commanded, and seek not to counsel your God.--Amen.

So in 1830 he’s claiming an authority, power or right which other ministers do not have and adding in the new and everlasting covenant. Why? Because he had received that authority from John the Baptist.

And in sec 22 of the Book of Commandments there is also a reference to it;

He writes;

22:1 Behold there shall be a record kept among you, and in it thou shalt be called a seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church through the will of God the Father, and the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ;

22:2 Being inspired of the Holy Ghost to lay the foundation thereof, and to build it up unto the most holy faith;

Five years later he clarifies exactly what he was referring to in his history;

73.………..And again, so soon as I had been baptized by him, I also had the spirit of prophecy, when, standing up, I prophesied concerning the rise of this Church, and many other things connected with the Church, and this generation of the children of men. We were filled with the Holy Ghost, and rejoiced in the God of our salvation.

I think in 1830 he was through the Spirit talking around his experiences with “the ministering of angels” and it’s not until 1835 that he feels secure enough to almost fully reveal the extent of it. Remember Peter James and John never told the whole truth of what happened on the mount of transfiguration either.

[halconero]

But have you read the full story?

It's the timing of his elevation that causes some people consternation.

"At the organization of the church in 1830, Cowdery had been designated the "second elder" of the church.[2] After Smith organized the First Presidency in 1832, Cowdery's standing in the church hierarchy had become uncertain. Cowdery's ordination as Assistant President reaffirmed his status as second only to Smith in church authority."

http://en.m.wikipedi.../Oliver_Cowdery

He was ordained within months of the angelic ordination started coming out and he was first to mention the angel ordination (in T&S).

There's D&C 20 to take into account. April 1830. No origin cited of power other than God/Holy Ghost. An Apostle is an Elder.

Then in Section 21 we've got Jospeh and Oliver ordaining each other apostles/Elders.

But the interpolated verses in section 27 says that Peter, James and John had done that. It also mentions the 'priesthood of Aaron from JtB.' No mention of Aaronic priesthood was made in section 20, even though the two sections are supposed to have been revealed just months apart.

On the other hand there's a precedent for this in the Book of Mormon. At the coming of Christ to the Americas there is a host of baptisms and ordinations performed for those who were already assuredly baptized and had been performing baptisms themselves for a while. There is sense that this is done because of a reorganization of the Church/New Dispensation.

There is also no specific mention of the "Aaronic priesthood" in 3 Nephi, but there is clearly a division of powers between being able to baptize with water and then being able to baptize with the Holy Ghost.

[canard78]

On the other hand there's a precedent for this in the Book of Mormon. At the coming of Christ to the Americas there is a host of baptisms and ordinations performed for those who were already assuredly baptized and had been performing baptisms themselves for a while. There is sense that this is done because of a reorganization of the Church/New Dispensation.

There is also no specific mention of the "Aaronic priesthood" in 3 Nephi, but there is clearly a division of powers between being able to baptize with water and then being able to baptize with the Holy Ghost.

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand the relevance of the rebaptism in the BOM to angelic ordination?

1830 Section 20 also has a divisions of power limiting what different offices can do. Most churches will have different offices and authority/roles assigned to that office.

[cdowis]

It remains asked and unanswered.

Joseph wrote a history in 1832, is it in there (I know it ends too early in the narrative)?

John Whitmer started a church history in 1830, which starts with Moroni's vision as the foundation? Does he mention it?

Anything in letters/missionary tracts from the early 1830s?

He published the BoC in 1833, is it in there?

I don't see how something being 'old news' invalidates the need to answer the issues.

You asked the questions and let's suppose the answer -- "NO".

Now, let me ask you a question, just the one question ==>> So what.

What precisely is your point to these questions. Do you have an "inescapable conclusion"? This is an old technique where a bunch of leading questions are asked and the conclusion is unspoken, left hanging. So, don't leave us in suspense now that we have answered your questions.

Edited July 16, 2013 by cdowis

[canard78]

You asked the questions and let's suppose the answer -- "NO".

Now, let me ask you a question, just the one question ==>> So what.

What precisely is your point to these questions. Do you have an "inescapable conclusion"? This is an old technique where a bunch of leading questions are asked and the conclusion is unspoken, left hanging. So, don't leave us in suspense now that we have answered your questions.

No "inescapable conclusion." As I already mentioned to Calmoriah, I have no conclusion. JS & OC may or may not have been ordained by an angel. I don't presume that it's not possible because I do believe in a God who interacts with his children. I would like to be able to draw that conclusion eventually.

The only conclusion that I draw from your emphatic "no" and the "so what" is this:

No mention is made of angelic ordination for 5 years. The membership seem to be made aware of it for the first time in 1834/5. This is in spite of several other angelic experiences that are discussed and written about in detail. Some historians and readers conclude that JS and OC made it up (including some historians/readers who also believe that Angels exist). We appear to have no evidence to present to those people to counter their conclusions. Therefore, when people like Dan Vogel come to us and says he's studied the history (whether he believes in Angels or not) there seems to be only one response that is fair: "Yes, Dan, the evidence points to that... but we still don't believe it because we put greater weight on the evidence of a spiritual witness than the evidence teased out of the documents available to us."

Dan's belief system is irrelevant to us if we can't refute his evidence. Our belief system is irrelevant to Dan if we can't refute his evidence.

Given (as you so often remind me) this is an apologetics board, not a spiritual witnessing board, do you have any evidence before 1834 that they were ordained by Angels? Or is the only historical evidence you have post-1834: that Oliver never denied his testimony of the Gold Plates nor his ordination at the hands of angels.

[stemelbow]

Can I check I've understood you right? You're saying Dan is biased but have not read/viewed any of his arguments?

Why do you feel able to make a comment on his work as a historian if you've not read his work to evaluate how much his bias impacts his conclusions.

I suggested his approach seems biased. He's admitted its biased just as every other approach. I've not commented on his work at all, only on his approach as he's described it and a few of his ideas/comments that he's presented here.

You can watch the two YouTube videos for free on the topic. Why not actually refute the evidence presented rather than have a go at Dan's position?

I didn't have a go at his position. He got his feathers ruffled, it seems, merely because I did not kiss his caboose. I"d be quite happy to sit it on his presentation and give my impressions afterward. I've commented on what he's given here, nothing more. He doesn't like my comments so he's over-reacted in my estimation. HOpefully that's all behind us. I haven't staked my position on the angelic events happening or not. I'm shrugging my shoulders here saying "beats me what happened exactly. For some reason, I don't even find myself all that interested on whether JS and OC were visited by angels or not".

I do not share Dan's bias. But I find the evidence presented hard to refute. I am yet to see a strong argument that does.

Great.

Everything I've read to respond is either:

- History doesn't work like that

Or

- Oliver could have denied it later and didn't.

Neither of these explain why it took 5 years for any mention of some of the most significant events in the restoration to be made.

I didn't say otherwise. I"m not sure what you are trying to read into my comments. I've merely suggested Dan is out to prove it was a made up event. Has he done a good job of it? Beats me. But judging by what he's given me here? It doesn't look like he has as much as he's claiming. Do I care? Not all that much. I've said he has a bias. He's admitted he does. Is that somehow even commenting on his work? Is that attacking him as he's claimed? I can't see how.

[cdowis]

No "inescapable conclusion." As I already mentioned to Calmoriah, I have no conclusion.

I am relieved to hear that.

JS & OC may or may not have been ordained by an angel. I don't presume that it's not possible because I do believe in a God who interacts with his children. I would like to be able to draw that conclusion eventually.

The only conclusion that I draw from your emphatic "no" and the "so what" is this:

No mention is made of angelic ordination for 5 years. The membership seem to be made aware of it for the first time in 1834/5. This is in spite of several other angelic experiences that are discussed and written about in detail. Some historians and readers conclude that JS and OC made it up (including some historians/readers who also believe that Angels exist). We appear to have no evidence to present to those people to counter their conclusions.

That goes back to the "inescapable conclusion" argument. We may not be able to present (nonexistent) evidence but we can blow the logic behind the conclusion. (ala Nibley). We demonstrate the problem with their logic/ conclusion.

There are at least two or more possibilities for a particular troubling issue, such as this hole in the history. We simply present other alternatives ==>> a document is missing (we may find a confirming document later on -- Vogel knows that this happens all the time), they were busy (see my previous post), it was unnecessary to record it at that time (it was something already commonly known), there was a specific reason why it was not recorded (due to persecution, some events were not made known until a later time).

The inescapable conclusion simply becomes one of several alternatives. We don't have the exact answer, but, with patience, the answer will eventually come. History has many unanswered issues, and this is just one of them. Vogel already knows that.

Don't panic, it's no big deal.

Therefore, when people like Dan Vogel come to us and says he's studied the history (whether he believes in Angels or not) there seems to be only one response that is fair: "Yes, Dan, the evidence points to that... but we still don't believe it because we put greater weight on the evidence of a spiritual witness than the evidence teased out of the documents available to us."

That is not an argument that I would use with Dan. It is unnecessary, it is poor apologetics. Dan himself has several unanswered questions, as he repeatedly refuses to answer. His only response is, "I already answered that question", and then goes silent.

Dan's belief system is irrelevant to us if we can't refute his evidence. Our belief system is irrelevant to Dan if we can't refute his evidence.

Really?!

Anyway, I just learn to live with it. Each of us will be held responsible for our decisions. My friend, this is only a hobby, so don't take it so seriously.

Given (as you so often remind me) this is an apologetics board, not a spiritual witnessing board, do you have any evidence before 1834 that they were ordained by Angels? Or is the only historical evidence you have post-1834: that Oliver never denied his testimony of the Gold Plates nor his ordination at the hands of angels.

They told me so in church history. The specific dates of their record is interesting, fascinating, intriguing, but it is just one of many puzzles in history. It may be troubling to a godless atheist, but not to me.

[cdowis]

Take the suggestion that they deliberately kept it quiet. They had already told everyone about John the Baptist, and it may have caused them a great deal of persecution. So they decided it was prudent to keep this among themselves for awhile.

I see this as a reasonable and plausible explanation. Now the other guy needs to show that his conclusion is the only one possible.

Edited July 16, 2013 by cdowis

[Danzo]

Why make it so black and white? Either prophet who is right in all things or con-artist. It's this kind of dichotomy that makes people leave when troubles come.

If they made it all up in 1835, then they both were con artists.

Where is the grey?

[Danzo]

As I understand itthe allegation is

Joseph smith (and Oliver Cowdery) made up visitation of John the Baptist.

Evidence is:

1. Lack of written reference to it until 4 years after the occurrence

2. Someone said they hadn't heard it before.

IF this is true then all of the early converts that stayed faithful and believed were either

1. Stupid

2. In on the Con

However, with our superior intelligence and omniscience, we can overcome our superstitious ancestors credulity and because we know what really happened, because we know how to do historical analysis.

If only they had known.