Vogel'S Sunstone Presentation

[Ahab]

It's not answered until it's published.

That's the flaw in your thinking. People say things to each other all the time without any "publishing" of what they have said.

You seem to think that talking doesn't count unless or until somebody writes it down, and while it can help to write things we can still share ideas with each other without anyone writing anything down.

The fact is that while the subject has been discussed before, it has not been discussed (in public at least) in this manner.

You mean where someone gets up on a stand and says something about this issue? What makes you think someone else hasn't already talked about this? Looks to me like you're basing that idea on you not finding anyone else who put that in writing, too, but just because it's not in writing that somebody talked about it doesn't mean someone hasn't already talked about it.

Private discussions speculated about are irrelevant.

Because they're not in writing, right? Typical writer mentality: "If it's not written down then it has never been talked about before."

[Dan Vogel]

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?

True, not everything that happened is recorded. That would be impossible. But how can you talk about things in the past without records. So our scope of talking about the past is limited. The important point is not whether something "really" happened, but what warrants your interpretation of the past. Do you have good or bad warrant?

True, not everything that’s recorded is true. How do we verify what happened? What is your methodology for uncovering deception? Wouldn’t you use the same methods that I have been using?

[cinepro]

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?

No CFR for me. Your recollection is enough to establish that Joseph Smith said it.

Let's say he said it in...1834, and I'll pencil it in to my "Teaching of Joseph Smith Manual". If we both do it, then that will be enough to "establish" it.

Edited July 16, 2013 by cinepro

[Ahab]

True, not everything that happened is recorded. That would be impossible. But how can you talk about things in the past without records.

You mean how can we know about things that happened in the past without reading about them? Simple. By someone who was involved in past events telling us something about what happened. No need for it to be in writing, first, if someone can just tell us about it. Written records can be a good source of ideas, though, but they're really not necessary as long as there is someone around who can tell us about what happened.

So our scope of talking about the past is limited. The important point is not whether something "really" happened, but what warrants your interpretation of the past. Do you have good or bad warrant?

Some people seem to have trouble with the idea that whatever is written was written by someone, a person, so what we're talking about is WHO do we chose to believe. The fact that someone puts something in writing doesn't make what they say any more credible than it would be had they simply said what they wrote down. It's all people talking, and when listening/reading what people tell us we still need to have some way to know what is true, regardless of whether we read or heard what someone has said.

I could tell you that I trust only the people who I know are telling the truth, but what would that mean to you?

Whether I write something down or tell you in person, you are still going to make your own decision on who you should believe, and even if I am a very popular writer who has sold many books you still may not believe anything I tell you, and you could even have a good reason not to.

True, not everything that’s recorded is true. How do we verify what happened? What is your methodology for uncovering deception? Wouldn’t you use the same methods that I have been using?

I look for truth, rather than deception, and I trust in God to tell me the truth through the promptings he gives me through the power of the Holy Ghost. Still not going to make you believe me, though, is it, even if I put what he tells me in writing.

[cinepro]

You mean how can we know about things that happened in the past without reading about them? Simple. By someone who was involved in past events telling us something about what happened. No need for it to be in writing, first, if someone can just tell us about it. Written records can be a good source of ideas, though, but they're really not necessary as long as there is someone around who can tell us about what happened.

When it comes to distinguishing between someone recounting their eyewitness testimony and someone making it up, the difference might not be as great as we would hope. I would only trust a single eyewitness testimony in the simplest or most mundane situations.

[stemelbow]

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.

Why do you say they did not mention it as a matter of certainty? We don't know that.

I realize it's not just a matter of silence in your view, but the only reason to assume they made it up is because it wasn't mentioned, when you feel it should have been.

[Ahab]

When it comes to distinguishing between someone recounting their eyewitness testimony and someone making it up, the difference might not be as great as we would hope. I would only trust a single eyewitness testimony in the simplest or most mundane situations.

My point was that it doesn't make any difference whether something is in writing or shared verbally. And yes, someone who tells us something could be telling us something that isn't true as well as something that is true, so we still need to have some way to find out what the truth is with it making no difference at all whether something is in writing or shared verbally.

[Danzo]

When it comes to distinguishing between someone recounting their eyewitness testimony and someone making it up, the difference might not be as great as we would hope. I would only trust a single eyewitness testimony in the simplest or most mundane situations.

Yet most things that happen only have a single eyewitness, or none at all. This particular thing had two.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one records it falling, did it really fall?

Edited July 16, 2013 by Danzo

[canard78]

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.

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.

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.

I'm afraid I do take it very seriously. It's going to have an influence how I live the rest of my life and, I suppose, has implications for the eternities.

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.

I'm not a godless atheist. But it is both a puzzle and and troubling.

[Dan Vogel]

Jude2:

“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”

Obviously, this only applied to Harmony. It says they kept secret their baptisms as well, which doesn’t apply anywhere else.

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.

The phrase refers to the Three Witnesses declaring the BOM to the world, does it not? How you get angel ordinations out of that is a puzzle.

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

That’s my point. So when you read in JS’s 1832 History that he received two priesthoods, that the first was a “reception of the Holy Priesthood by the minist[e]ring of Angels [note the plural] to administer the letter of the Gospel, the Law and commandments as they were given unto him, and the ordinances,” it is only saying that the authority was derived from the appearance of angels (in association with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon) and the reception of divine commands.

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,….”

Being careful not to read too much into this statement from subsequent information, it appears to refer to the time before the 1823 vision of Moroni.

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.

There is nothing about authority given by angel ordination. The authority was derived from the will and commandments of God. That is being authorized by God through revelation to perform a work or ordinance. Without angel stories, what was the concept of authority in the early church? Divine command. That’s what separated Mormonism from other sects.

The preamble to Sec. 20 delineates the authority upon which the church was organized, which was divine and angelic commands and angel appearances in association with the coming forth of the BOM.

“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.

Which is more likely? How was the BOM translated?

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.

Sorry, but you have nothing here. I think you would be hard-pressed convincing other apologists let alone me.

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. ....

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.

Baptisms by other ministers were only invalid with the establishment of the New Covenant. Interestingly, the revelation doesn’t say other ministers don’t have authority because they hadn’t been properly ordained. If angel ordination had occurred wouldn’t this have been one of those time to mention it?

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.

Secure enough? The first mention was by Cowdery in a letter to W W Phelps in Missouri to help them become stronger in the faith. JS had just returned to Ohio with Zion’s Camp from his failed attempt to restore the saints to their lands in Jackson County. Zion had been lost and the prophecies seemed unfulfilled. He received heavy criticism in Ohio and Missouri. His leadership was being questioned. Introducing angel ordination stories made it less likely that their would be a break off of the Missouri Church and made everyone under JS more reliant on his authority. When JS gave his version of the vision it was in Missouri about to be imprisoned. So keeping it secret because of fear of persecution doesn’t make sense.

[Ahab]

If a tree falls in the forest and no one records it falling, did it really fall?

Excellent question since it is precisely on point, and the answer to that question is Yes.

Now ask if it would matter if it was recorded in a person's mind who saw or heard it fall without seeing in writing that it fell.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Ahab

[Dan Vogel]

Why do you say they did not mention it as a matter of certainty? We don't know that.

I realize it's not just a matter of silence in your view, but the only reason to assume they made it up is because it wasn't mentioned, when you feel it should have been.

We have no reason to believe that they did and good reasons to believe they didn't. So, at this point, it would be wishful thinking to leave the door open. It's not just silence. They should have mentioned it in the Articles and Covenants of the Church, and it makes no sense that they didn't tell other priesthood holders. JS said in 1838 that the angel used the words "Priesthood of Aaron", but the Aaronic or Levitical Priesthood (which Mormons shouldn't have in the first place) wasn't part of the discourse until September 1832 (D&C 84).

[canard78]

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

Where is the grey?

I'm not so sure. Does every story that teaches a principle always make you a con artist?

When a parent talks of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, are they a con artist?

When Abraham said Sarah was his sister, was he being a con artist?

When Joseph stood and publicly refuted polygamy and his practice of it, was he being a con artist?

When God said, in D&C 19:7 that 'endless torment' doesn't actually mean torment without end, was He being a con artist?

Maybe the grey is that they all taught a story with a principle or for a greater purpose. Maybe, as D&C 19 says, it's "more express" and "works on the hearts of the children of men."

Edited July 16, 2013 by canard78

[Dan Vogel]

Excellent question since it is precisely on point, and the answer to that question is Yes.

Now ask if it would matter if it was recorded in a person's mind who saw or heard it fall without seeing in writing that it fell.

Look guys: If no one recorded that the tree fell how could you be talking about it?

Edited July 17, 2013 by Dan Vogel

[Ahab]

Look you guys: If no one recorded that the tree feel how could you be talking about it?

Why is it that oral tradition isn't appreciated as much as it used to be, I wonder.

People can tell other people things without having to write things down, or relying on writings.

And you're just assuming they didn't tell others about those visitations and ordinations earlier, thinking that just because you don't see it in writing that means they didn't tell other people about it.

Look Dan. If they told some people about it without writing it down, wouldn't that mean they still told them?

You don't need to see it in writing if someone can tell you the same thing in person.

They had Joseph and Oliver talking to them, personally.

Edited July 17, 2013 by Ahab

[Danzo]

I'm not so sure. Does every story that teaches a principle always make you a con artist?

When a parent talks of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, are they a con artist?

When Abraham said Sarah was his sister, was he being a con artist?

When Joseph stood and publicly refuted polygamy and his practice of it, was he being a con artist?

When God said, in D&C 19:7 that 'endless torment' doesn't actually mean torment without end, was He being a con artist?

Maybe the grey is that they all taught a story with a principle or for a greater purpose. Maybe, as D&C 19 says, it's "more express" and "works on the hearts of the children of men."

So you are ok with Joseph and Oliver colluding to create a story to explain their authority, along with exact dates?

And all of those poor suckers who never questioned them.

Good thing we are so much smarter than them.

[canard78]

So you are ok with Joseph and Oliver colluding to create a story to explain their authority, along with exact dates?

And all of those poor suckers who never questioned them.

Good thing we are so much smarter than them.

Not really OK. Maybe God even inspired him to create the story to bolster his authority claims. I doubt that too. But I'm just showing you what 'grey' might look like. That it's not simply "everything a Prophet says is 100% accurate or he's a complete con artist."

[canard78]

That's the flaw in your thinking. People say things to each other all the time without any "publishing" of what they have said.

You seem to think that talking doesn't count unless or until somebody writes it down, and while it can help to write things we can still share ideas with each other without anyone writing anything down.

You mean where someone gets up on a stand and says something about this issue? What makes you think someone else hasn't already talked about this? Looks to me like you're basing that idea on you not finding anyone else who put that in writing, too, but just because it's not in writing that somebody talked about it doesn't mean someone hasn't already talked about it.

Because they're not in writing, right? Typical writer mentality: "If it's not written down then it has never been talked about before."

It's not just a case of nothing in writing before 1834 (which alone is an issue), but the fact that the statements that are in writing before 1834 don't fit. Plus the fact that David Whitmer, who Joseph was in close association with at the time of the claimed ordinations says he had heard nothing of it.

If David Whitmer of all people knew nothing of it (a man selected as one of the three witnesses and who had several angelic experiences of his own) then one questions who could have.

Or do we call David a liar? Bear in mind he makes this statement in almost the same breath as his witness of the Gold Plates.

[Danzo]

Not really OK. Maybe God even inspired him to create the story to bolster his authority claims. I doubt that too. But I'm just showing you what 'grey' might look like. That it's not simply "everything a Prophet says is 100% accurate or he's a complete con artist."

There is a difference between not being 100%, accurate and making something up out of whole cloth, writing it in your history, colluding with others, and putting in the cannon.

Not being 100% accurate, means not remembering the date right, the wording may have been off a bit or the order of ordinations or something like that.

I don't think that Joseph and Oliver are being accused of "not being 100% correct". They are being accused of "bald faced lying to secure authority over others"

[Danzo]

It's not just a case of nothing in writing before 1834 (which alone is an issue), but the fact that the statements that are in writing before 1834 don't fit. Plus the fact that David Whitmer, who Joseph was in close association with at the time of the claimed ordinations says he had heard nothing of it.

If David Whitmer of all people knew nothing of it (a man selected as one of the three witnesses and who had several angelic experiences of his own) then one questions who could have.

Or do we call David a liar? Bear in mind he makes this statement in almost the same breath as his witness of the Gold Plates.

David Whitmer wasn't a witness of the events. He can be forgiven for not knowing, especially if Joseph and Oliver weren't public about the event.

[canard78]

David Whitmer wasn't a witness of the events. He can be forgiven for not knowing, especially if Joseph and Oliver weren't public about the event.

You're right, he wasn't. And he's also a witness to the fact that if the ordinations really did happen then they weren't mentioned until 1834.

So if Joseph and Oliver weren't public about the event for 5 years, could you explain why it took them so long and why priesthood was first organised in 1830 without any mention of 'the priesthood of Aaron/Melchizedek' - let alone a mention of first ordination being by laying on of hands?

Why was Joseph happy to disclose and discuss the vision of Moroni in 1823, the vision of an angel with the Gold plates in 1829, the vision of a heavenly messenger about sacrament wine in 1830.

The list goes on. All of these visions were mentioned to other people, close friends and sometimes taught publicly, at the time they happened. We can see the original hand-written transcripts of the accounts and commentaries on them from other people.

And when was the instruction to stay quiet about it recorded? In a journal at the time? Or nearly 10 years later when writing Mormon history?

[Calm]

When it comes to distinguishing between someone recounting their eyewitness testimony and someone making it up, the difference might not be as great as we would hope. I would only trust a single eyewitness testimony in the simplest or most mundane situations.

And it would help if they didn't have any benefit from the situation and had established a reputation for having a reliable memory.

[Calm]

If someone has asked these questions before, please ignore them. Not arguing, looking for clarification...

Obviously, this only applied to Harmony.

Do you mean the need to keep it quiet or the spirit of persecution? Either way, if they experienced it in Harmony, wouldn't it be wisdom to be as careful elsewhere as the same thing could happen there or if they spoke of it to someone outside of Harmony word could get back? IOW, I am wondering what it is about the evidence that makes you so certain it was limited to only Harmony.

....and the ordinances,” it is only saying that the authority was derived from the appearance of angels (in association with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon) and the reception of divine commands

And what of the ordinances, what evidence precludes them having received the ordinances themselves (at least those needed) in order to properly pass them one?

it appears to refer to the time before the 1823 vision of Moroni.

How so? Edited July 17, 2013 by calmoriah

[Danzo]

You're right, he wasn't. And he's also a witness to the fact that if the ordinations really did happen then they weren't mentioned until 1834.

No he is only a witness that either he wasn't told or was told and then forgot.

kinda of like everyone here who is a witness that the church hid the fact of Joseph Smith's gun until they found out about it.

[stemelbow]

We have no reason to believe that they did and good reasons to believe they didn't.

I think it's these kinds of statements that continue to cause people not to want to take you seriously. In this you are saying not one mormon has a reason to believe that they had angel ordinations when it comes to the priesthood. That is a disrespect of a whole faith group. Additionally I think it's yet been shown that there was good reasons to believe they didn't.

So, at this point, it would be wishful thinking to leave the door open. It's not just silence. They should have mentioned it in the Articles and Covenants of the Church, and it makes no sense that they didn't tell other priesthood holders.

And yet if it really happened as they claimed and you are unable to find any historical data to confirm it before 1834 and in so doing you make up a story about what really happened, then your history is nothing but wrong. Its just as wishful thinking on yoru part to close the door by saying they made it up.

JS said in 1838 that the angel used the words "Priesthood of Aaron", but the Aaronic or Levitical Priesthood (which Mormons shouldn't have in the first place) wasn't part of the discourse until September 1832 (D&C 84).

Yipteyy. I know that's flippant but I don't see the big fuss on this point. There's no doubt JS didn't have a complete understanding of many things until later in his life when it came to the revelation and scripture that he produced. The evolution of language seems to be appropriate context to me.