Vogel'S Sunstone Presentation

[Hamilton Porter]

Because Vogel lives in a world in which such things are just not possible, of course he is going to call any such problem into question. That is understandable. What is not understandable is the notion that only history as Vogel formulates it can possibly be true.

This is the main reason I don't agree with much Dan Vogel says. He holds naturalistic assumptions and stuffs all facts, counterevidence, etc. into that naturalistic pigeonhole.

[cdowis]

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?

What is there to explain? We are supposed to read JS mind on "why it took so long" when he was busy running the church. It was simply low on his priority list to fill in historical details.

You DO understand that this is a matter of keeping current the historical record, do you not? It is not a salvation issue. They decided (according to my theory) that it did not make sense to provoke more persecution by telling about yet another angel story, and simply did not get around to updating the history.

As to the priesthood issue, again they were able to operate with the Melch phd just fine, even when they did not give it a name. It is a matter of priority and practicality.

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.

Ask him when you see him.

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.

OK, and are you arguing "there is only one conclusion". Whenever you do historical research, "the list goes on" of puzzling, unanswered questions. Yes, it is frustrating, but that is the nature of trying to guess why things happen when the participants are deceased and did not leave a clear record of events.

Vogel is certainly aware of that issue.

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?

It was never written down. How much time do you suppose was spent writing down every nibbling detail that would be of interest only a hundred years later. Do you have any idea what it took to establish the church, run its operation, move the saints to different locations, publish formal revelations, handle persecution, etc.

Amazing.

Edited July 17, 2013 by cdowis

[Calm]

What about the comments by Hiram Page?

Hiram Page, a son-in-law of Peter Whitmer Sr., and one who was present on the day of the Church’s 6 April 1830 organization, later confirmed that “Peter, James and John” had come and bestowed the Holy Priesthood “before the 6th of April 1830.”

http://en.fairmormon.org/Priesthood/Restoration/Melchizedek/Date

Granted it is dated 1848, (Letter of Hiram Page to “Brother Wm. [William E. McLellin],” 4 March 1848, Fishing River, Missouri, Second Part, RLDS Archives, Independence, Missouri) but he appears to be as confident about it as David Whitmer is not.

Also what is to be made of this reference in 1833?:

Some have claimed that Joseph only began to mention apostolic ordination to the priesthood several years after the Church's organization. This claim is belied by the fact that in March of 1833, the Reverend Richmond Taggart wrote a letter to a ministerial friend, regarding the activities of Joseph Smith himself in Ohio: "The following Curious occurrance occurred last week in Newburg [Ohio] about 6 miles from this Place [Cleveland]. Joe Smith the great Mormonosity was there and held forth, and among other things he told them he had seen Jesus Christ and the Apostles and conversed with them, and that he could perform Miracles."^[16]

Here, then, is a clear reference to Joseph Smith stating he had seen Jesus Christ. Joseph’s ‘conversations’ with the Apostles could be a reference to having seen, spoken to, and been ordained to the Priesthood by the early Apostles Peter, James, and John. Having received that Priesthood Joseph Smith was now qualified to perform healings, and other ‘miracles’.

also from the FAIR page

[Calm]

It seems to me the best evidence for the ordination by angels is the 1832 history. One can interpret it to be a generic response as it appears Dan has, but it could very well be, imo, a direct comment on angels restoring the priesthood since that is what it refers to. As it happens WikiWonka has been working on the subject for the response to the CES Letter criticism and has posted some info here:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents/Letter_to_a_CES_Director/Priesthood_Restoration_Concerns_%26_Questions#.22Although_the_priesthood_is_now_taught_to_have_been_restored_in_1829.2C_Joseph_and_Oliver_made_no_such_claim_until_1834..22

"Although the priesthood is now taught to have been restored in 1829, Joseph and Oliver made no such claim until 1834."

From "A Letter to a CES Director"

The author states, "Like the First Vision story, none of the members of the Church or Joseph Smith’s family had ever heard prior to 1834 about a priesthood restoration from John the Baptist or Peter, James, and John. Although the priesthood is now taught to have been restored in 1829, Joseph and Oliver made no such claim until 1834. Why did it take five years for Joseph or Oliver to tell members of the Church about the priesthood?" . . . . "Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery did not teach anyone or record anything prior to 1834 that men ordained to offices in the Church were receiving 'priesthood authority'"

Short Answer

• The author is incorrect.
  

• Joseph made the claim in writing in 1832 in his first history of the church.
  
• There is a reference to his ordination in the Articles and Covenants of the church of Christ, written in 1830.
  

• Joseph's 1832 history (written two years prior to the author's claim) talks of the restoration of the priesthood through the "ministering of Angels":
  

1832

A History of the life of Joseph Smith Jr. an account of his marvilous experience and of all the mighty acts which he doeth in the name of Jesus Chist the son of the living God of whom he beareth record and also an account of the rise of the church of Christ in the eve of time according as the Lord brough<t> forth and established by his hand <firstly> he receiving the testamony from on high secondly the ministering of Angels thirdly

the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of Aangels to adminster the letter of the Gospel-- <--the Law and commandments as they were given unto him--> and the ordinencs, forthly a confirmation and reception of the high Priesthood after the holy order of the son of the living God power and ordinence from on high

to preach the Gospel in the administration and demonstration of the spirit the Kees of the Kingdom of God confered upon him and the continuation of the blessings of God to him &c––

• There is an even earlier reference that was made in 1830: Book of Commandments Chapter 24 (the equivalent of today's Doctrine and Covenants Section 20). The question that this passage should raise is: "Who ordained Joseph prior to June 1830?":
  

The Articles and Covenants of the church of Christ, given in Fayette, New York, June 1830:

The rise of the church of Christ in these last days, being one thousand eight hundred and thirty years since the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, in the flesh;

2 It being regularly organized and established agreeable to the laws of our country, by the will and commandments of God in the fourth month and on the sixth day of the month, which is called April:

3 Which commandments were given to

Joseph, who was called of God and ordained an apostle of Jesus Christ

, an elder of this church;

4 And also to Oliver, who was also called of God an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of this church, and ordained under his hand.

[Calm]

A friend brought up the problematic nature of David Whitmer's comments.

For example we have this from his Address to Believers:

The next grievous error which crept into the church was in ordaining high priests in June, 1831. This error was introduced at the instigation of Sydney Rigdon. The office of high priests was never spoken of, and never thought of being established in the church until Rigdon came in. Remember that we had been preaching from August, 1829, until June, 1831 — almost two years — and had baptized about 2,000 members into the Church of Christ, and had not one high priest. During 1829, several times we were told by Brother Joseph that an elder was the highest office in the church.

And yet we have Alma 13:

1 And again, my brethren, I would cite your minds forward to the time when the Lord God gave these commandments unto his children; and I would that ye should remember that the Lord Godordained priests, after his holy order, which was after the order of his Son, to teach these things unto the people.

2 And those priests were ordained after the order of his Son, in amanner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to his Son for redemption.

3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained—beingcalled and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such.

4 And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren.

5 Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared—

6 And thus being called by this holy calling, and ordained unto the high priesthood of the holy order of God, to teach his commandments unto the children of men, that they also might enter into his rest—

7 This high priesthood being after the order of his Son, which order was from the foundation of the world; or in other words, being without beginning of days or end of years, being prepared from eternity to all eternity, according to his foreknowledge of all things—

8 Now they were ordained after this manner—being called with a holy calling, and ordained with a holy ordinance, and taking upon them the high priesthood of the holy order, which calling, and ordinance, and high priesthood, is without beginning or end—

9 Thus they become high priests forever, after the order of the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, who is without beginning of days or end of years, who is full of grace, equity, and truth. And thus it is. Amen.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/13?lang=eng

[pmccombs1]

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.

I suppose Dan Vogel can speak for himself, but I don't think he meant to include "a whole faith group" in the pronoun, "we." Religious believers have their own reasons to believe. I see Dan's "we" as referring to those who are looking at history through the lens of primary, contemporaneous evidence.

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.

On Prospect Hill in Somerville there is a monument on which a Grand Union flag--a 13-stripe flag with a small Union Jack in the canton--is raised each New Year's day. The belief is that this event is a re-enactment of George Washington's famous unfurling of the same flag many years earlier, at the time when the British forces were expelled from Boston.

But one vexillologist, Peter Ansoff, has gone back to the contemporaneous sources and looked at them without the assumptions of tradition and of the modern, evolved understanding of patriotism. All of the sources Mr. Ansoff reviewed from which our tradition arises (there are three, I believe), identify that flag simply as the "Union Flag." And what did the locals of that specific time, who would have written the history, understand by "Union Flag?" Just this: The King's colors, and nothing more.

Peter Ansoff came to realize that George Washington and his fellow "Americans" didn't consider themselves very much "American" at all. These were Englishmen who still counted upon a Just king to address their grievances, and they flew his flag over Boston. That understanding also helped to clarify another bit of history: Why the redcoats initially thought the assailants were their friends.

Well, it's revisionism. It's looking at the evidence in the light that it would have been understood at the time, not through years of evolution and tradition. How do the Somerville people take this "revisionism?" Not kindly, I'm afraid. It reminds me of what I see here.

This is "the big fuss" as I see it: The retelling, re-imagining, and re-interpretation of history through "evolving" understanding and tradition. You hit the nail on the head--that Joseph Smith and the Saints didn't have a "complete understanding" at the time. Yes, they were later re-telling their story through an ever changing understanding of it, and from different perspectives and needs. Must we accept what they said was fact? It's history, not fact. What might the facts actually be? That's what Dan Vogel is trying to justify and suggest.

Even I understand, imagine, and interpret my own past experience differently today than I did at the time it happened (or didn't happen, as the case may be). I can't give an objective, accurate history of myself. I'm full of subjective baggage, desires, secrets, and self-perception. I'm a human being. I am self-interested and represent myself in a certain way to other people. I think I'm justified, but perhaps there is some impartial spectator somewhere that begs to differ.

Some historians try to see through all of this in order to arrive at a conclusion they consider to be "justified" by a certain quality of evidence, and not encumbered by the projections of tradition and evolved understandings or needs. From what I've seen in this thread, it is my opinion that Dan is not out of line in his claims. His questions are not at all unreasonable to ask.

[stemelbow]

I suppose Dan Vogel can speak for himself, but I don't think he meant to include "a whole faith group" in the pronoun, "we." Religious believers have their own reasons to believe. I see Dan's "we" as referring to those who are looking at history through the lens of primary, contemporaneous evidence.

Well, I think it can be appreciated that he's wrong either way. The mere fact that the only ones possibly involved in the incident maintained it happened as they initially claimed is reason itself. He's suggesting there is only reason to support his conclusion and not any reason to support something else. I think he's over-stating his case by a long shot, at best and attempting to offend others at worst.

On Prospect Hill in Somerville there is a monument on which a Grand Union flag--a 13-stripe flag with a small Union Jack in the canton--is raised each New Year's day. The belief is that this event is a re-enactment of George Washington's famous unfurling of the same flag many years earlier, at the time when the British forces were expelled from Boston.

But one vexillologist, Peter Ansoff, has gone back to the contemporaneous sources and looked at them without the assumptions of tradition and of the modern, evolved understanding of patriotism. All of the sources Mr. Ansoff reviewed from which our tradition arises (there are three, I believe), identify that flag simply as the "Union Flag." And what did the locals of that specific time, who would have written the history, understand by "Union Flag?" Just this: The King's colors, and nothing more.

Peter Ansoff came to realize that George Washington and his fellow "Americans" didn't consider themselves very much "American" at all. These were Englishmen who still counted upon a Just king to address their grievances, and they flew his flag over Boston. That understanding also helped to clarify another bit of history: Why the redcoats initially thought the assailants were their friends.

Well, it's revisionism. It's looking at the evidence in the light that it would have been understood at the time, not through years of evolution and tradition. How do the Somerville people take this "revisionism?" Not kindly, I'm afraid. It reminds me of what I see here.

This is "the big fuss" as I see it: The retelling, re-imagining, and re-interpretation of history through "evolving" understanding and tradition. You hit the nail on the head--that Joseph Smith and the Saints didn't have a "complete understanding" at the time. Yes, they were later re-telling their story through an ever changing understanding of it, and from different perspectives and needs. Must we accept what they said was fact? It's history, not fact. What might the facts actually be? That's what Dan Vogel is trying to justify and suggest.

Even I understand, imagine, and interpret my own past experience differently today than I did at the time it happened (or didn't happen, as the case may be). I can't give an objective, accurate history of myself. I'm full of subjective baggage, desires, secrets, and self-perception. I'm a human being. I am self-interested and represent myself in a certain way to other people. I think I'm justified, but perhaps there is some impartial spectator somewhere that begs to differ.

Some historians try to see through all of this in order to arrive at a conclusion they consider to be "justified" by a certain quality of evidence, and not encumbered by the projections of tradition and evolved understandings or needs. From what I've seen in this thread, it is my opinion that Dan is not out of line in his claims. His questions are not at all unreasonable to ask.

Questions are fine. His conclusions are the problems. He's dogmatically saying he's right based on a silence of 5 years and his assumption something should show up in the historical record during those 5 years. I don't think that's as reasonable to conclude he has every reason on his side while the other side is cmpletely void of anything.

I may be one of the few actual believers whose willing to consider that the stories are made up. I just can't see how his reasoning creates the sound case he is claiming. With that said, 'tis true, I haven't seen his presentation or read anything on this topic from him aside from what he's posted here.

[Calm]

The mere fact that the only ones possibly involved in the incident maintained it happened as they initially claimed is reason itself.

Have I misunderstood? I thought the argument was that it differed from the initial claim.

[pmccombs1]

Questions are fine. His conclusions are the problems. He's dogmatically saying he's right based on a silence of 5 years and his assumption something should show up in the historical record during those 5 years. I don't think that's as reasonable to conclude he has every reason on his side while the other side is cmpletely void of anything.

No, silence isn't the basis at all, as I see it. Silence is not the ground of Dan's argument; he is looking at what was understood and was said during those years of "silence" in order to demonstrate anachronism in the history. It seems to me that the apologist rarely looks beyond arguments that may suggest "an absence of evidence" as their basis, in order to take issue only with that absence. Well, what Dan presumes to present isn't mere absence. That absence is filled with something that gives us a window into what those people believed and thought at the time, which surprises us in light of their later claims and thus presents us with a problem.

If you make silence the basis of Dan's argument, then I think you are building up a straw man.

[canard78]

It seems to me the best evidence for the ordination by angels is the 1832 history. One can interpret it to be a generic response as it appears Dan has, but it could very well be, imo, a direct comment on angels restoring the priesthood since that is what it refers to. As it happens WikiWonka has been working on the subject for the response to the CES Letter criticism and has posted some info here:

http://en.fairmormon..._until_1834..22

Thanks Cal. In the spirit of maintaining an unconcluded position I'm trying to give all evidence fair weight.

I'd read that passage before, but in this context it's a fair point.

Given the 4 events mentioned and the order they are mentioned. We might have:

1. he receiving the testamony from on high (1820 First vision)
   
2. the ministering of Angels (1823 Moroni's visits)
   
3. the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of Aangels to adminster the letter of the Gospel (1829 John the Baptist Aaronic Priesthood Ordination)
   
4. a confirmation and reception of the high Priesthood after the holy order of the son of the living God power and ordinence from on high to preach the Gospel in the administration and demonstration of the spirit the Kees of the Kingdom of God confered upon him and the continuation of the blessings of God to him (1829 Peter, James and John Ordination)
   

Thanks.

[Damien the Leper]

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.

I suppose their ordinations just weren't important enough to be spoken about or written about in those five years. History is hardly ever neat and tidy. No community's, country's or institution's history is ever completely accurate, with merit or truthful. That is just plain and simple knowledge. Plenty of information is left out as a means to perpetuate "faith promoting rumors." Just look at high school US history textbooks.

[cdowis]

It seems to me that the apologist rarely looks beyond arguments that may suggest "an absence of evidence" as their basis, in order to take issue only with that absence. Well, what Dan presumes to present isn't mere absence. That absence is filled with something that gives us a window into what those people believed and thought at the time, which surprises us in light of their later claims and thus presents us with a problem.

I don't know to which "apologists" you are talking about, but this apologist gave a detailed answer to Dan's issue.

One of the alternatives mentioned was that JS and the insiders chose not to inform, keep a current record of the event to escape additional persecution. They simply chose to wait before informing the world of the visit.

My dear fellow, I stared his argument directly in the eye, stood toe-to-toe, nose to nose, and gave a direct response. Did you bother to read my post?

Dan has nothing to add but just one of many opinions of the events at that time. Certainly no "inescapable conclusion".

Edited July 18, 2013 by cdowis

[halconero]

I suppose their ordinations just weren't important enough to be spoken about or written about in those five years. History is hardly ever neat and tidy. No community's, country's or institution's history is ever completely accurate, with merit or truthful. That is just plain and simple knowledge. Plenty of information is left out as a means to perpetuate "faith promoting rumors." Just look at high school US history textbooks.

Well...hopefully we can come together on some history Valentius. I mean, we may disagree on the origin of the priesthood in LDS theology but that doesn't mean we can't come together and acknowledge the fact the "British North America" kicked some Yankee panky in 1812. Or do these textbooks you speak of say otherwise?

[pmccombs1]

I don't know to which "apologists" you are talking about, but this apologist gave a detailed answer to Dan's issue.

I refer to the abstract apologist who very frequently repeats the mantra "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Why must it be someone in particular? I am speaking of a type: that is to say, apologists who only address the problem of absence, or silence, by attempting to explain why silence itself isn't necessarily a problem as there could be any number of hypothetical reasons for it. Perhaps there is more than the silence to account for? Such as contexts that might limit what those hypotheticals are? e.g.:

The problem is that there isn't just one version. I try to reconstruct the development of the early Mormon concept of authority and show that the stories are anachronistic and problematic. It's not as simple as accepting Smith and Cowdery's stories or not.

That sounds like more than silence to me..

And this:

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

My dear fellow, I stared his argument directly in the eye, stood toe-to-toe, nose to nose, and gave a direct response. Did you bother to read my post?

No, you didn't. Where did you address anachronisms between early Mormon concepts of authority and the later stories of angelic visitations? What I understood from Dan's post is that, not only is there absence, but the extant evidence detailing early Mormon notions of authority are anachronistic in light of the later visitation stories. Where did you address these "other problems?" Nowhere. Why? Because you're trying to counter arguments you haven't even received. Dan has only provided generalities here; there is hardly anything to argue about yet.

Dan has nothing to add but just one of many opinions of the events at that time. Certainly no "inescapable conclusion".

Where did Dan claim an "inescapable conclusion?" I've read places where he claims that he can't know what really happened, and other places where he identifies "problems." On a couple of posts, he reiterates that he is not relying on an argument from silence alone, which is the only argument I see imagined and addressed here. Actually, I see you first suggesting "inescapable conclusions," as if someone else had claimed to make them; and then you repeat the implication again to me. You appear to have introduced the idea of inescapable conclusions in the first place, pinned it on to somebody you disagreed with, and are now saying, "look how silly it is to make such a claim." It's a claim perhaps you wish Dan had made, because such absolutism certainly does look foolish and is an easy straw man to attack. Instead, Dan seems to think that the evidence he will be presenting in full elsewhere ought to be acknowledged as "problematic," if any are so inclined to consider it.

Anyway, this is merely my view of what has been said, and the reactions to it.

Edited July 18, 2013 by pmccombs1

[cdowis]

del

Edited July 18, 2013 by cdowis

[volgadon]

You are quibbling over words and phrases and add very little to this discussion.

Sorry for being so blunt, but you are relatively new and need to learn how to get some focus.

Nonsense.

[cdowis]

Let me revise my previous comment above.

My posts were not directed to Dan. You will note that I did not quote him, nor was my post directed to him for comment (he is on my ignore list). My posts contain general comments on the issue based on other posts in the thread and previous discussions on similar issues. That's where "silence" and "inescapable conclusion" come from.

Normally I don't spend time with meta discussion, but I can see where this would be confusing.

Edited July 18, 2013 by cdowis

[stemelbow]

No, silence isn't the basis at all, as I see it. Silence is not the ground of Dan's argument; he is looking at what was understood and was said during those years of "silence" in order to demonstrate anachronism in the history. It seems to me that the apologist rarely looks beyond arguments that may suggest "an absence of evidence" as their basis, in order to take issue only with that absence. Well, what Dan presumes to present isn't mere absence. That absence is filled with something that gives us a window into what those people believed and thought at the time, which surprises us in light of their later claims and thus presents us with a problem.

If you make silence the basis of Dan's argument, then I think you are building up a straw man.

I'll just quote Dan for you then:

It's not a matter of silence, but silence where one could reasonably expect mention of angel ordination

So you tell me "silence isn't the basis at all". Dan tells me it is a basis. Then again later on you mention silence as part of it again.

Whatever the case I've repeatedly addressed Dan's point as quoted in this post.

[stemelbow]

I suppose their ordinations just weren't important enough to be spoken about or written about in those five years.

There are a few reasons why they didn't mention it. Hardly should we consider they didn't think it was important as a reason. That would be unreasonable.

History is hardly ever neat and tidy.

Then you get my point. There's no reason to put our assumptions and expectations on to others.

[Damien the Leper]

Well...hopefully we can come together on some history Valentius. I mean, we may disagree on the origin of the priesthood in LDS theology but that doesn't mean we can't come together and acknowledge the fact the "British North America" kicked some Yankee panky in 1812. Or do these textbooks you speak of say otherwise?

Unfortunately, the textbooks omit Canadian involvement. At least the ones I've observed in the last 10 year's. But I got Canada's back on this one!

[Damien the Leper]

There are a few reasons why they didn't mention it. Hardly should we consider they didn't think it was important as a reason. That would be unreasonable.

Then you get my point. There's no reason to put our assumptions and expectations on to others.

By all means please enlighten me to the reasons. I'd like a direct explanation from JS or OC as opposed to hearsay. Speculation is NOT a response and this is an official CFR.

[stemelbow]

By all means please enlighten me to the reasons. I'd like a direct explanation from JS or OC as opposed to hearsay. Speculation is NOT a response and this is an official CFR.

I typed that wrong. You mention one possible reason out of a few possible reasons. I meant to say There are a few possible reasons why they didn't mention it.

I believe a few other possibilities have already been mentioned in this thread.

Peace.

[Damien the Leper]

I typed that wrong. You mention one possible reason out of a few possible reasons. I meant to say There are a few possible reasons why they didn't mention it.

I believe a few other possibilities have already been mentioned in this thread.

Peace.

So speculation is the only response. It's unfortunate that this appears to be the best mode of explanation.

[stemelbow]

So speculation is the only response. It's unfortunate that this appears to be the best mode of explanation.

Indeed, speculating that they felt the angel visits weren't important enough is a disappointment in and of itself.

[Calm]

Speculation is NOT a response and this is an official CFR.

But isn't Vogel's reasoning applied to the evidence just as much speculation? If so, then what is the problem with answering speculation with speculation?