Dan Vogel's New Video On Js's Bringing Plates Home

[Dan Vogel]

“Joseph Smith Brings the Plates Home”

New Video by Dan Vogel

 

            Joseph Smith claimed he translated the Book of Mormon from anciently engraved gold plates, which he took from a stone box in the side of a hill near his home in Manchester, New York. Claiming that he was forbidden by God to show them to anyone, Smith kept the plates carefully wrapped in a cloth or concealed in a wooden box. Believers accept this as God’s way of requiring faith, whereas skeptics suspect Smith constructed a set of plates that couldn’t pass visual inspection. This is the story of Joseph Smith’s bringing the plates home in September 1827.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmX-H1GBivk&feature=c4-overview&list=UUE7-EZ_ANHRkYHv7wCUTt0Q

 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Good luck with this.

[stemelbow]

Hi Dan,

 

Interesting video. 

 

 In speaking of the 4 visits made by Joseph to the hill you claimed "If Joseph Smith did make annual visits...his family would have anticipated his next visit."  Just after you quoted Lucy as saying "but Joseph did not make that known to us" in speaking of the visits to where the plates allegedly were.  That doesn't seem to add up.  If he did not make the visits known to them, then there is no reason to assume his family would have anticipated anything.

 

I know you are very much bent on Joseph's pre-BoM history being largely with money diggers, so when you said something along the lines of his 1826 trial revived the story of the plates, what were you thinking of, exactly?  Revived from where?

 

You indicated/claimed that in the fall of 1827 the Smith males resumed treasure seeking work and that Joseph directed a treasure seeking company until he received the plates.  I wonder what you have in mind.  What company (it does seem that most of your sources for your claims come after the fact and come from hostile sources) did you have in mind? 

 

I listened tot he whole thing but I only took notes of some of the early parts.  You have a very clear direction you are trying to steer us--many little comments and assumptions make it all very clever and contrived. 

[Billy the Law]

“Joseph Smith Brings the Plates Home”

New Video by Dan Vogel

 

            Joseph Smith claimed he translated the Book of Mormon from anciently engraved gold plates, which he took from a stone box in the side of a hill near his home in Manchester, New York. Claiming that he was forbidden by God to show them to anyone, Smith kept the plates carefully wrapped in a cloth or concealed in a wooden box. Believers accept this as God’s way of requiring faith, whereas skeptics suspect Smith constructed a set of plates that couldn’t pass visual inspection. This is the story of Joseph Smith’s bringing the plates home in September 1827.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmX-H1GBivk&feature=c4-overview&list=UUE7-EZ_ANHRkYHv7wCUTt0Q

If you are the real Dan Vogel you are one of my heroes. 

[why me]

If you are the real Dan Vogel you are one of my heroes. 

Why? Has this video actually said anything that was not known already? As dan proved the book of mormon false?

[Billy the Law]

Why? Has this video actually said anything that was not known already? As dan proved the book of mormon false?

I've just read a few of his books. And I think the Book of Mormon proves that the Book of Mormon is false; the work of the critic is to show how. 

[SamIam]

If you are the real Dan Vogel you are one of my heroes. 

 

He is not the real Dan Vogel...they are all impostors.

[Billy the Law]

He is not the real Dan Vogel...they are all impostors.

Dang. You're probably right.

[Freedom]

I've just read a few of his books. And I think the Book of Mormon proves that the Book of Mormon is false; the work of the critic is to show how. 

Then  the critics are demonstrably incompetent.

[cdowis]

I've just read a few of his books. And I think the Book of Mormon proves that the Book of Mormon is false; the work of the critic is to show how. 

 

Brilliant.

 

Considering the textual evidence corresponding to the real world of the ancient middle east, the critics have a very steep hill to climb.  Unfortunately, the evidence is pouring in from mesoamerica, and the hill (pun intended) is getting higher and steeper.  So far, their "missing horse" argument is virtually standing alone.

 

So Dan has to revert to the "book delivered by an angel" analysis -- e.g. the eight witnesses really did not handle the plates, did not view the individual leaves, did not see the writings, but only viewed them with "spiritual eyes".  Besides failing to define the term, he has not one scintilla of evidence for that conclusion except his own imagination.

 

Who wrote the Book of Mormon?  How was it written -- was there a manuscript in that infamous hat of his?  What exactly was the role of the eleven witnesses -- dupes or co-conspirators in this "pious fraud".  If this was written by someone in the 19th century, where do all these non 19th century stuff come from.

 

But that is beating a dead horse.  So let's give the critics more time.  The last real challenge was the DNA argument, but that quickly collapsed.

 

Joseph Smith was a treasure seeker, a glass peeper. OK,  I guess for now that is sufficient for some to discredit him and the book delivered by an angel.

Edited September 21, 2013 by cdowis

[Helen47]

"The last real challenge was the DNA argument, but that quickly collapsed."

Have you read the recent entries on  http://simonsoutherton.blogspot.com.au/

 

http://simonsoutherton.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/could-lamanite-dna-just-disappear.html

 

 

"Lamanite DNA: Nowhere to Hide 

The research on Neanderthals and Denisovans clearly illustrates that if ancestors of other ethnic backgrounds are hiding unnoticed in our family trees, traces of their DNA can be found in our genomes. Even after tens of thousands of years. It is no longer reasonable to claim that Lamanite DNA cannot be found. The recent advances in whole genome sequencing and analysis have changed the research landscape. Genetic tests are now so sensitive, that it is possible to detect a tiny fraction of a percent of mixed ancestry in a person’s DNA."

Edited September 21, 2013 by Helen47

[cdowis]

The plant geneticist spouts forth once again.  I guess he thinks we are really really stupid.

 

1. This has already been refuted but I don't want to take the time and effort to look it up.  Something to do with a small group entering a very large population (the Nephites) vs the founder effect.  Neanderthal DNA is almost universally present (among nonAfricans) which indicates it was introduced early into the general population, while the Nephites were a very small group among a very large population.  

 

As a plant geneticist, he should understand the difference between apples and oranges.

 

2. He has not even touched upon the basic issue of identifying the DNA characteristics of Lehi, et al.  Somehow he hangs onto the fantasy that he is able to identify "Jewish genes" of Lehi  (tribe of Joseph) with samples from modern Jews.  He doesn't even know what he is looking for!

 

3. Finally there is the issue of sampling error -- large populations of Amerindians disappeared after the European incursion.  For example, there is still no cogent explanation of the source of haplogroup X among a small number of amerindians.  What about the extinct tribes and their missing DNA.

 

Southerton has nowhere to hide his ignorance.  It is sad that he threw away his inheritance for a mess of pottage.

Edited September 22, 2013 by cdowis

[Tacenda]

The plant geneticist spouts forth once again. I guess he thinks we are really really stupid.

1. This has already been refuted but I don't want to take the time and effort to look it up. Something to do with a small group entering a very large population (the Nephites) vs the founder effect. Neanderthal DNA is almost universally present (among nonAfricans) which indicates it was introduced early into the general population, while the Nephites were a very small group among a very large population.

As a plant geneticist, he should understand the difference between apples and oranges.

2. He has not even touched upon the basic issue of identifying the DNA characteristics of Lehi, et al. Somehow he hangs onto the fantasy that he is able to identify "Jewish genes" of Lehi (tribe of Joseph) with samples from modern Jews. He doesn't even know what he is looking for!

3. Finally there is the issue of sampling error -- large populations of Amerindians disappeared after the European incursion. For example, there is still no cogent explanation of the source of haplogroup X among a small number of amerindians. What about the extinct tribes and their missing DNA.

Southerton has nowhere to hide his ignorance. It is sad that he threw away his inheritance for a mess of pottage.

CFR when you get a minute.

[Billy the Law]

Then  the critics are demonstrably incompetent.

Or the apologists are demonstrably deluded...

[cdowis]

CFR when you get a minute.

 

These are my personal opinions and conclusions, based on my discussions on this forum with critics who are trained geneticists, personal research (e.g. discussion with Dr. Brown of Emory University) and the articles on http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/dna-and-the-book-of-mormon

 

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._s._neanderthalensis

Edited September 22, 2013 by cdowis

[ERayR]

Or the apologists are demonstrably deluded...

 

I vote for the critics being grossly incompetent.

Edited September 22, 2013 by ERayR

[Billy the Law]

Brilliant.

 

Considering the textual evidence corresponding to the real world of the ancient middle east, the critics have a very steep hill to climb.  Unfortunately, the evidence is pouring in from mesoamerica, and the hill (pun intended) is getting higher and steeper.  So far, their "missing horse" argument is virtually standing alone.

 

So Dan has to revert to the "book delivered by an angel" analysis -- e.g. the eight witnesses really did not handle the plates, did not view the individual leaves, did not see the writings, but only viewed them with "spiritual eyes".  Besides failing to define the term, he has not one scintilla of evidence for that conclusion except his own imagination.

 

Who wrote the Book of Mormon?  How was it written -- was there a manuscript in that infamous hat of his?  What exactly was the role of the eleven witnesses -- dupes or co-conspirators in this "pious fraud".  If this was written by someone in the 19th century, where do all these non 19th century stuff come from.

 

But that is beating a dead horse.  So let's give the critics more time.  The last real challenge was the DNA argument, but that quickly collapsed.

 

Joseph Smith was a treasure seeker, a glass peeper. OK,  I guess for now that is sufficient for some to discredit him and the book delivered by an angel.

Recently I heard a politician discuss a proposed plan for student loan interest rates. The rates would go from fixed rate to a rate that would vary based on the LIBOR rate and some other factors, essentially creating more complexity. Despite this increased complexity, the politician boldly stated that the new system would be easier, simpler, and less complex. When I read his words, I felt like he knew what he was saying was false but was trying to make it not false by saying it wasn't. I got the same feeling when I just read what you said. Just because the apologists have done their nonsensical spinning does not mean that many of the age old arguments regarding the Book of Mormon aren't still valid or possible. I would invite you take as objective an approach to all things Church history related as you can and determine where the preponderance of the evidence points. 

[cdowis]

This topic has been extensively discussed elsewhere.  Read the articles in mormonnewsroom, say something intelligent by starting a new thread on the subject instead of blasting hot air.  

 

Finally, since you have put this on a personal level, and you are new here, you need to understand that any other post like the one you made above, and you will find that I am permanently unresponsive to your posts.

 

You are too new here for anyone to care about your personal opinions.  You need to build your credibility by posting cogent and intelligent posts.

Edited September 22, 2013 by cdowis

[ERayR]

Recently I heard a politician discuss a proposed plan for student loan interest rates. The rates would go from fixed rate to a rate that would vary based on the LIBOR rate and some other factors, essentially creating more complexity. Despite this increased complexity, the politician boldly stated that the new system would be easier, simpler, and less complex. When I read his words, I felt like he knew what he was saying was false but was trying to make it not false by saying it wasn't. I got the same feeling when I just read what you said. Just because the apologists have done their nonsensical spinning does not mean that many of the age old arguments regarding the Book of Mormon aren't still valid or possible. I would invite you take as objective an approach to all things Church history related as you can and determine where the preponderance of the evidence points. 

 

When I see/hear a critic latch on to some insignificant bit of information and turn it in to an elaborate straw man, ignoring the immense body of evidence that supports the Book of Mormon and the restoration I "felt like he knew what he was saying was false but was trying to make it not false by saying it wasn't. I got the same feeling when I just read what you said".  You seem to be vested in proving these things wrong and simply close your eyes to anything that contradicts your preconceived conclusions. 

 

I honestly feel sorrow for one who restricts themselves that way.

[Billy the Law]

This topic has been extensively discussed elsewhere.  Read the articles in mormonnewsroom, say something intelligent by starting a new thread on the subject instead of blasting hot air.  

 

Finally, since you have put this on a personal level, and you are new here, you need to understand that any other post like the one you made above, and you will find that I am permanently unresponsive to your posts.

 

You are too new here for anyone to care about your personal opinions.  You need to build your credibility by posting cogent and intelligent posts.

I believe you began the ad hominem attack by snidely referring to me as "brilliant", bro.  

[ERayR]

I believe you began the ad hominem attack by snidely referring to me as "brilliant", bro.  

 

Sounds like a compliment to me.

[Calm]

I believe you began the ad hominem attack by snidely referring to me as "brilliant", bro.  

I think he was talking about your comment, not you personally.

[Billy the Law]

When I see/hear a critic latch on to some insignificant bit of information and turn it in to an elaborate straw man, ignoring the immense body of evidence that supports the Book of Mormon and the restoration I "felt like he knew what he was saying was false but was trying to make it not false by saying it wasn't. I got the same feeling when I just read what you said".  You seem to be vested in proving these things wrong and simply close your eyes to anything that contradicts your preconceived conclusions. 

Preconceived conclusions? You know nothing of how I have come to believe what I believe and you accuse me of having preconceived conclusions. Nice...

[Billy the Law]

I think he was talking about your comment, not you personally.

Ya, you're right. My mistake.

 

Start adding some substance without the snark.  This is your last warning.  You will be banned without further warning if the attitude continues.

[ERayR]

Preconceived conclusions? You know nothing of how I have come to believe what I believe and you accuse me of having preconceived conclusions. Nice...

 

I just came back at you with your own posts.  Now do you see what you look like to the rest of us?  An old adage:  What is good for the goose is good for the gander.