Vogel'S Sunstone Presentation

[Calm]

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

You don't think understanding this quote from 1832 below as potentially referring to the ordination since it pretty much says just that as something more than speculation?

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––

[canard78]

You don't think understanding this quote from 1832 below as potentially referring to the ordination since it pretty much says just that as something more than speculation?

I suppose the challenge with a conversation like this is that a non-Mormon historian like Dan is convinced that there were no angels, so sees the 1832 reference as too oblique.

A believing Mormon on the other hand is convinced that there were angel ordinations so sees that and presumes it references an event they are already sure happened.

Both make assumptions about a reference that could be read either way. As I said in a previous post, I can see that this is a strong reference in defence. He had at least mentioned angelic ordination by 1832.

[Calm]

Both make assumptions about a reference that could be read either way. As I said in a previous post, I can see that this is a strong reference in defence. He had at least mentioned angelic ordination by 1832.

I agree with your summation of the positions.

[pmccombs1]

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.

Look to the articles. I mean to point out that there is more than silence to the argument. Clearly the silence demands an investigation into what is not silent so that one might justifiably interpret what the silence means. Are there problems of anachronism, or "other problems," besides merely a reasonable expectation for something to appear in the record? Dan seems to think there are. Will Dan provide such an argument? Let us wait and see; then perhaps a defense could be mounted, rather than "points" that are addressed out of context. The fact is, nobody here has seen the presentation.

[stemelbow]

Look to the articles. I mean to point out that there is more than silence to the argument. Clearly the silence demands an investigation into what is not silent so that one might justifiably interpret what the silence means. Are there problems of anachronism, or "other problems," besides merely a reasonable expectation for something to appear in the record? Dan seems to think there are. Will Dan provide such an argument? Let us wait and see; then perhaps a defense could be mounted, rather than "points" that are addressed out of context. The fact is, nobody here has seen the presentation.

You are correct. We've only had comments he's made here.

[Calm]

You are correct. We've only had comments he's made here.

And his podcasts...

[stemelbow]

And his podcasts...

I assumed too much when i spoke as "we". I've only seen his posts here. I'm sure others here have read or heard more from him.

[Damien the Leper]

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?

Of course. I havrnt addressed Vogel's speculation. However, he starts with questions and seems to be looking for answers as opposed to merely speculating rationalizations.

[Damien the Leper]

You don't think understanding this quote from 1832 below as potentially referring to the ordination since it pretty much says just that as something more than speculation?

What exactly is this source? I've not read it before. Thank you for providing it nonetheless.

[Calm]

Don't have time to relook it up. It is JS' 1832 history and there is a link in my earlier posting of it in the thread.

[cdowis]

Of course. I havrnt addressed Vogel's speculation. However, he starts with questions and seems to be looking for answers as opposed to merely speculating rationalizations.

I assume you understand the concept of "leading questions" -- when did you stop beating your wife, etc.

Don't be fooled.

Edited July 19, 2013 by cdowis

[halconero]

What exactly is this source? I've not read it before. Thank you for providing it nonetheless.

1832 account of the First Vision. The one where Joseph only mentions "The Lord" and is forgiven of his sins. It was written in Joseph's handwriting.

The part the catches my eye is this:

"...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."

What I find interesting is that he divides the restoration in different parts:

1) Ministry of Angels

2) Ministry of Angel (distinct from the first ministry) to receive the priesthood to teach the letter (principles?) of the Gospel and ordinances

3) Reception of high priesthood (notice that the adjective changes) confirming his calling and allowing him to administer the kingdom.

In the early days of the church there were no saving ordinances specific to the Melchezidek priesthood (besides confirmation), but it was needed to lead the church. Notice there is a distinction between receiving the priesthood to teach and perform ordinances, and the high priesthood to administer the kingdom.

Edited July 19, 2013 by halconero

[Dan Vogel]

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.

How do you know they told other people? If they told anyone, it would have been leading members like the Whitmers and McLellin. Orson Pratt didn't correct Whitmer, so he didn't hear about it either. Who do you imagine they told?

[Dan Vogel]

Calmoriah,

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.

JS’s statement says they kept both their baptisms and angel ordination secret due to persecution in the neighborhood, which is what made it necessary for them to leave with David Whitmer and move to Fayette. The persecution in Harmony came from Emma’s father and other relatives. The 1832 History says: “... we had become reduced in property and my wives father was about to turn me out of doores & I had not where to go.” So even if one is skeptical about angel ordination, it makes sense that JS would not want to irritate Isaac Hale with stories about baptisms. JS then describes Fayette as being friendly to his claims and baptisms are performed publically.

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?

I don’t understand what you are asking here.

How so?

D&C 20:5 describes a period before 1823 because it goes on to describe the appearance of the angel.

[Dan Vogel]

What about the comments by Hiram Page?

http://en.fairmormon...elchizedek/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?:

also from the FAIR page

Page is only repeating JS's later claims and does not contradict the Whitmers or McLellin. The 1833 source isn't clear enough.

[Damien the Leper]

Big thanks to Calmoriah and Halconero. You both helped immensely. Rockstars!!

[Dan Vogel]

Big thanks to Calmoriah and Halconero. You both helped immensely. Rockstars!!

You probably cheer for the Cowboys as well!

[Tacenda]

http://issuu.com/sunstonesymposium/docs/prelimjuly4-sc/0

 

I'm thinking of attending the Sunstone Symposium this year.  Anyone here going?  It looks like a lot of subjects we've discussed will be presented on the various days.  For instance on Aug. 1st it has a few I would be interested in going to such as....Why We Stay, Ordain Women: Where We Are Now, Church Discipline: Impact on Family, Ward, and the Larger LDS Community, Authors Meets Critics: The Lost Apostles: Forgotten Members Mormonism's Original Quorum of Twelve, The Gender of God and the Diversity of Human Sexuality, A Diversity of Faith: Panel on Grace and Works, Pillars of My Faith. 

[MAsh]

When Cowdery came back to the Church in 1849 he confirmed angel ordinations, but he also uttered a lie that went back to 1830. He said he wrote the BOM as it fell from JS lips, who translated with the Nephite interpreters or spectacles. This was completely false and contradicted by all other witnesses, who state that JS used the seer stone in hat method during Cowdery’s tenure as scribe.

 

Hi Dan. Wish could attend Sunstone this year & hear your presentation.

 

I must take exception with your quote above. Now you may be able to correct me if I'm in error, but at least based on the info of which I'm aware your claim (above) is inaccurate.  According to my information the statement made by O.C. regarding his role as a scribe was recorded by Reuben Miller during the special conference of October 21 1848 when O.C. spoke to the congregation upon his return to the Church. We don't have O.C.'s words but rather Miller's recollection of O.C.'s words (which, admittedly, Miller believes were "verbatim" of what O.C. said). Be that as it may, Miller recorded O.C. as stating: "I wrote, with my own pen, the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages,) as it fell from the lips of the Prophet Joseph Smith as he translated it by the gift and power of God, by the means of the Urim and Thummim, or, as it is called by that book, 'holy interpreters.'" O.C. went on to say he handled the plates and the "holy interpreters."

He never said "spectacles" (unless it is in information of which I'm aware-- and that's certainly possible). Your interpretation that O.C. was referring to the spectacles is certainly one possibility but not the only possible interpretation. The "interpreters" as "called" by the Book of Mormon would suggest that it was referring to the Nephite Interpreters but 1) we don't know if that interpretation was part of Reuben's recollection or O.C.'s actual words or of a general LDS consensus of what tool JS used; 2) since the phrase "Urim and Thummim" was used interchangeably for the seer stone & Nephite Interpreters, it's possible that the "holy interpreters" were likewise used as a generic (i.e., "Kleenex") word for either tool, and 3) while I would agree that JS was using the seerstone when OC was scribe, OC seemed to be familiar with the physical characteristics of the Nephite Interpreters which at least opens the possibility that JS may have tried the Nephite Interpreters on other occasions.

 

All in all, I don't think it's fair to claim that OC was lying about the translating tool when it's possible he was simply stating that he wrote what JS said while receiving revelation from a tool utilized by God to translate the BoM.

[Scott Lloyd]

Hi Dan. Wish could attend Sunstone this year & hear your presentation.

 

I must take exception with your quote above. Now you may be able to correct me if I'm in error, but at least based on the info of which I'm aware your claim (above) is inaccurate.  According to my information the statement made by O.C. regarding his role as a scribe was recorded by Reuben Miller during the special conference of October 21 1848 when O.C. spoke to the congregation upon his return to the Church. We don't have O.C.'s words but rather Miller's recollection of O.C.'s words (which, admittedly, Miller believes were "verbatim" of what O.C. said). Be that as it may, Miller recorded O.C. as stating: "I wrote, with my own pen, the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages,) as it fell from the lips of the Prophet Joseph Smith as he translated it by the gift and power of God, by the means of the Urim and Thummim, or, as it is called by that book, 'holy interpreters.'" O.C. went on to say he handled the plates and the "holy interpreters."

He never said "spectacles" (unless it is in information of which I'm aware-- and that's certainly possible). Your interpretation that O.C. was referring to the spectacles is certainly one possibility but not the only possible interpretation. The "interpreters" as "called" by the Book of Mormon would suggest that it was referring to the Nephite Interpreters but 1) we don't know if that interpretation was part of Reuben's recollection or O.C.'s actual words or of a general LDS consensus of what tool JS used; 2) since the phrase "Urim and Thummim" was used interchangeably for the seer stone & Nephite Interpreters, it's possible that the "holy interpreters" were likewise used as a generic (i.e., "Kleenex") word for either tool, and 3) while I would agree that JS was using the seerstone when OC was scribe, OC seemed to be familiar with the physical characteristics of the Nephite Interpreters which at least opens the possibility that JS may have tried the Nephite Interpreters on other occasions.

 

All in all, I don't think it's fair to claim that OC was lying about the translating tool when it's possible he was simply stating that he wrote what JS said while receiving revelation from a tool utilized by God to translate the BoM.

Mike, you should be made aware, if you are not already, that the post to which you are responding was made nearly a year ago.

 

Tacenda has a habit of resurrecting old threads in order to post new content.

[Tacenda]

Mike, you should be made aware, if you are not already, that the post to which you are responding was made nearly a year ago.

Tacenda has a habit of resurrecting old threads in order to post new content.

My habit stems from not being able to post new topics, as you are surely aware.

Sorry if I gave the impression Dan is presenting this year, he isn't as far as I know, could be wrong though since I read the preliminary program through quickly..

[MAsh]

Mike, you should be made aware, if you are not already, that the post to which you are responding was made nearly a year ago.

 

Tacenda has a habit of resurrecting old threads in order to post new content.

 

Lol. Thanks Scott. It just shows how far behind the times I am.

[DJBrown]

Cowdery’s testimony was an uninterested witness, but he had benefited by going along with the sudden insertion of angel-ordination stories. He didn’t deny them when he was outside the church because he wasn’t angry at JS (who was not responsible for his excommunication) and it would have damaged his own reputation. Moreover, it would have damaged his BOM testimony, for which he was apparently sincere. When Cowdery came back to the Church in 1849 he confirmed angel ordinations, but he also uttered a lie that went back to 1830. He said he wrote the BOM as it fell from JS lips, who translated with the Nephite interpreters or spectacles. This was completely false and contradicted by all other witnesses, who state that JS used the seer stone in hat method during Cowdery’s tenure as scribe.

 

Oliver Cowdery "uttered a lie" when he made the statement about writing the Book of Mormon as Joseph translated via the Nephite interpeters or spectacles?  That seems like a very biased statement about a person who was scribe for the majority of the translation process.  He "lied."  Are there other explanations for the difference between his perspective and the others who acted as scribes?  Jumping to the conclusion that Oliver lied seems very biased to me.

[USU78]

Jumping to the conclusion that Oliver lied seems very biased to me.

 

And entirely expected.

[stemelbow]

Oliver Cowdery "uttered a lie" when he made the statement about writing the Book of Mormon as Joseph translated via the Nephite interpeters or spectacles?  That seems like a very biased statement about a person who was scribe for the majority of the translation process.  He "lied."  Are there other explanations for the difference between his perspective and the others who acted as scribes?  Jumping to the conclusion that Oliver lied seems very biased to me.

As I've seen it, that's largely how Vogel has made his case on nearly everything related to Joseph Smith. He carries an assumption and adds to it another assumption in order to reach his desired explanation. in my experience that's tiring to get into, because you can always go back to the point where his assumption has to hold for his conclusion to make sense and say, "well that assumption may not be true". But to him and his supporters it must be true because it's how to arrive at the conclusion he's made.

For instance Joseph was the leader/king pin of some local almost underground treasure seeking crew. That means all the complaints about Joseph long after the fact must all be true rather than actually be influenced by the attitude that Joseph and his religion is false. "yeah but there's so much evidence that Joseph was a treasure seeker in his teenage years so it must be true". What evidence? How does that draw the conclusion that he was some leader in the whole thing?