Dan Vogel Posted July 16, 2013 Author Posted July 16, 2013 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.I guess we are not communicating because you don't know what ad hominem is. Oh well ...
Ahab Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 I guess we are not communicating because you don't know what ad hominem is. Oh well ...What you should have said is: Oh, I'm sorry, stemelow. I was wrong in what I understood you to say. Please forgive me.Not the kind of thing you are comfortable saying, I know, but still you should have said that or something like it. Oh well.... 1
Dan Vogel Posted July 16, 2013 Author Posted July 16, 2013 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?This is an excellent question. What concept of authority did the early church have in absence of angelic ordination stories? It was the command of God that gave authority. Protestant derived authority from Jesus’ command to baptize the world in the NT, but Mormons believed that authority would have to come by direct revelation. 1
Dan Vogel Posted July 16, 2013 Author Posted July 16, 2013 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.GlennWhat I'm doing is not rehash. No one has put it together as clearly as I have. I and other have published in the development, but only I have taken on the visions and put them into historical context. My effort to understand these claims began in 1988, but more recently added more evidence in my videos on YouTube and in this paper for Sunstone. Barney and Anderson in the JS Papers episodes on KJZZ TV tried to excuse the delay in disclosing the vision stories to members, but it was all nonsense and inadequate.
Dan Vogel Posted July 16, 2013 Author Posted July 16, 2013 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.The JS Papers project tried to excuse the delay on their KJZZ presentation a few years ago, but came no where near answering the historical issues. They focused only on why JS might have withheld the information (fear of persecution and visions are sacred), and didn't address all the anachronisms and manipulations. Their excuses for delay just don't make sense. It's the weakest apologetic. John Whitmer was appointed the first Church historian in 1831 and he said he never heard the stories.
stemelbow Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 (edited) I guess we are not communicating because you don't know what ad hominem is. Oh well ...nevermind. I"m not playing along, Dan. I wish ya the best anywho. Edited July 16, 2013 by stemelbow
Dan Vogel Posted July 16, 2013 Author Posted July 16, 2013 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?D&C 27 is the first source to mention Peter, James, and John, and that was added some time between 21 Feb. 1835 and Aug. 1835. D&C 27 says PJJ restored keys of the apostleship (that is office of apostle, not the general apostleship/elder in D&C 20). So Cowdery didn't mention PJJ when addressing the Twelve on 21 Feb, but said the authority came from the angel Moroni to the Three Witnesses to the Twelve. The latter date is when JS left Kirtland just before the printing of the 1835 D&C was completed.
Damien the Leper Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 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.This is partly why I no longer accept LDS claims to priesthood authenticity. The story and storylines tend to be blurred or with holes. Speculation as to reason does nothing to substantiate a restoration of priesthood or angelic ordinations. There is nothing to brag about and there probably never was nor will there be. If ordinations are as important as the LDS claim them to be then the time gap between 1829 and 1834 does a deep disservice to not only the ordinations but to those doing the ordaining.
Ahab Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 What I'm doing is not rehash. No one has put it together as clearly as I have. I and other have published in the development, but only I have taken on the visions and put them into historical context. My effort to understand these claims began in 1988, but more recently added more evidence in my videos on YouTube and in this paper for Sunstone. Barney and Anderson in the JS Papers episodes on KJZZ TV tried to excuse the delay in disclosing the vision stories to members, but it was all nonsense and inadequate.Even if you are the first to write a book about it, that doesn't mean other people haven't talked about what you are writing about. You're only writing about what you have read but not everybody writes what they say or have said.
stemelbow Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 This is partly why I no longer accept LDS claims to priesthood authenticity. The story and storylines tend to be blurred or with holes. Speculation as to reason does nothing to substantiate a restoration of priesthood or angelic ordinations. There is nothing to brag about and there probably never was nor will there be. If ordinations are as important as the LDS claim them to be then the time gap between 1829 and 1834 does a deep disservice to not only the ordinations but to those doing the ordaining.So I ask, is it possible to put too much faith in the historical record? If, per chance, the angelic visits did happen, but we can't verify that they did until 5 years after the fact, then perhaps we'd be too hasty to dismiss the actual events. Does history really require such neat, tidiness? Its either rely on faith, through revelation, or rely on the faith we place in the historical record, i guess.
Dan Vogel Posted July 16, 2013 Author Posted July 16, 2013 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.Anyone with a little imagination can make up ad hoc possible scenarios. Do you think that that is all there is to historiography? We call that the fallacy of possible proof. Look it up.
Dan Vogel Posted July 16, 2013 Author Posted July 16, 2013 If they made it all up in 1835, then they both were con artists.Where is the grey?The grey is where they may have been sincere after all. They were lying for the Lord. Cowdery may have had a vision of angel and plates, believed JS translated the BOM, but was persuaded by JS that fabricating the angel ordination stories was necessary to hold the church together.
stemelbow Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 Anyone with a little imagination can make up ad hoc possible scenarios. Do you think that that is all there is to historiography? We call that the fallacy of possible proof. Look it up.yes, we all must be bound by the rules of historiography when we discuss matters. Afterall we all ought to have perfect faith in these rules, and ignore our faith in other things in order to develop our own opinion and discuss these matters.Much like many a critic complains that apologetics is driven by agenda and sets out to prove the faith, so do critics and all others. You have faith in historiography. Which is fine, And even gives us somethign to talk about. But, then when others don't feel it necessary to be bound by such rules, they are viewed with contempt. It seems just as ad hoc to suggest OC and JS made up the visits all because you can't find a historical record that shows them talking about it before 1834. 1
stemelbow Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 The grey is where they may have been sincere after all. They were lying for the Lord. Cowdery may have had a vision of angel and plates, believed JS translated the BOM, but was persuaded by JS that fabricating the angel ordination stories was necessary to hold the church together.Yes, he very well may have. And he very well may have mentioned the visits to people before 1834 but we simply don't have record of it. He may have not mentioned them, even if they did happen. There are many possibilities. 1
halconero Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 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.You mentioned that there was a problem with Joseph and Oliver ordaining each other when such had already been done by Peter, James and John. 3 Nephi records that Nephie performed baptisms before the coming of the Savior but was still reorganized upon the reorganization of the church upon Christ's coming to the Americas.Also, Apostles are still considered Elders. Peter, the apostle, is referred to as the First Elder in the Bible, and we today call the members of the twelve by the title Elder. 1
Ahab Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 So I ask, is it possible to put too much faith in the historical record? And the historical record is what? Is it a record of what really happened, or only what some people claim to have happened? And what if someone doesn't record something that happened? If something that happened isn't recorded in writing, does that mean it didn't happen? Any record we have in writing is what someone wrote, and not everything people write is the truth.If, per chance, the angelic visits did happen, but we can't verify that they did until 5 years after the fact, then perhaps we'd be too hasty to dismiss the actual events.And how would we verify what happened? If someone puts something in writing and someone else reads it is that enough of a basis for you to believe it really happened? Writers can write all kinds of things, and not everything they can write is the truth.Does history really require such neat, tidiness? Its either rely on faith, through revelation, or rely on the faith we place in the historical record, i guess.History, true history, is all about what really happened, but not every record people write about history is true.How do you know who to believe? 1
stemelbow Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 And the historical record is what? Is it a record of what really happened, or only what some people claim to have happened? And what if someone doesn't record something that happened? If something that happened isn't recorded in writing, does that mean it didn't happen? Any record we have in writing is what someone wrote, and not everything people write is the truth.And how would we verify what happened? If someone puts something in writing and someone else reads it is that enough of a basis for you to believe it really happened? Writers can write all kinds of things, and not everything they can write is the truth.History, true history, is all about what really happened, but not every record people write about history is true.How do you know who to believe?I agree with your comments and point. 1
Ahab Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 It seems just as ad hoc to suggest OC and JS made up the visits all because you can't find a historical record that shows them talking about it before 1834.That does seem to be his position, in a nutshell, doesn't it. And yet he needed how many pages to make his point?Yeesh. Writers. Sometimes they just need to get their heads out of their books and take a better look at reality. 1
stemelbow Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 That does seem to be his position, in a nutshell, doesn't it. And yet he needed how many pages to make his point?Yeesh. Writers. Sometimes they just need to get their heads out of their books and take a better look at reality.After all his hand waving, it seems to me that is the sum of it at this point. 1
cdowis Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 Also, Apostles are still considered Elders. Peter, the apostle, is referred to as the First Elder in the Bible, and we today call the members of the twelve by the title Elder.Apostle is a separate priesthood office, like elder and high priest. When attendance at a meeting is taken by priesthood, they are listed separately.
Ahab Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 Apostle is a separate priesthood office, like elder and high priest. When attendance at a meeting is taken by priesthood, they are listed separately.True, and while we understand that we still refer to apostles as elders, such as when referring to David Bednar, who is an apostle of Jesus Christ, as Elder Bednar rather than Apostle Bednar.
cinepro Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 And the historical record is what? Is it a record of what really happened, or only what some people claim to have happened? And what if someone doesn't record something that happened? If something that happened isn't recorded in writing, does that mean it didn't happen? Any record we have in writing is what someone wrote, and not everything people write is the truth.And how would we verify what happened? If someone puts something in writing and someone else reads it is that enough of a basis for you to believe it really happened? Writers can write all kinds of things, and not everything they can write is the truth.History, true history, is all about what really happened, but not every record people write about history is true.How do you know who to believe?Sometimes the most effective first step in apologetics is admitting something is different, unusual, or unexpected, and that the un-faithpromoting explanation is logical and possibly valid, even if you don't accept it. 4
Ahab Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 Sometimes the most effective first step in apologetics is admitting something is different, unusual, or unexpected, and that the un-faithpromoting explanation is logical and possibly valid, even if you don't accept it.Lots of things that aren't true are logical and possibly valid, if you accept the idea that anything is possible, and while I can accept that fact and say that it still doesn't change the fact that those things are not true.I can't recall the quote exactly, but Joseph Smith once made a statement after someone told him something about how it was a very reasonable thing to say and sounded very good and that the only thing wrong with it was that it wasn't true. Anyone familiar with what he said, exactly?
Dan Vogel Posted July 16, 2013 Author Posted July 16, 2013 Yes, he very well may have. And he very well may have mentioned the visits to people before 1834 but we simply don't have record of it. He may have not mentioned them, even if they did happen. There are many possibilities.It's not a matter of silence, but silence where one could reasonably expect mention of angel ordination, such as in the foundational document of the organization of the Church (D&C 20). Who do you think he told before 1834? Certainly not David or John Whitmer, Wm McLellin, and people they hung out with. Orson Pratt didn't contradict them; nor did anyone from that period of Church history. If it wasn't a secret and JS mentioned it to someone, how long would it take to get around the Church? I'm not obligated to solve Cowdery's sincerity, only that he was in league with Smith in making the stories up.
Dan Vogel Posted July 16, 2013 Author Posted July 16, 2013 Even if you are the first to write a book about it, that doesn't mean other people haven't talked about what you are writing about. You're only writing about what you have read but not everybody writes what they say or have said.What is that supposed to mean? The assertion was that what we are talking about is old hat and has been answered. It's not answered until it's published. The fact is that while the subject has been discussed before, it has not been discussed (in public at least) in this manner. Private discussions speculated about are irrelevant.
Recommended Posts