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

[Helen47]

What benefit is it to Simon to present his argument? He has a good job in Canberra, a family. He is not looking for an excuse to sin. He is just interested in the science.

[Helen47]

"Southerton has nowhere to hide his ignorance. It is sad that he threw away his inheritance for a mess of pottage."  Is he really ignorant?  Maybe from his point of view he seems himself  now free from a cult.

[Helen47]

Cdowis, I am sure Simon will respond to your "measured" comments on his blog. After all he is only " a **plant geneticist** you would not understand such things.(your comment"

[Billy the Law]

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.

I don't think I got a first warning...

[Calm]

I don't think I got a first warning...

Mods are often efficient that way, so efficient they can give you three warnings at once, the first, the last and the only warning. Pretty talented our mods.

PS...first warning is always the guidelines you agree to abide by.

[Dan Vogel]

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. 

 

In my reconstruction, JS goes to the hill in 1823 and 1824. He failed in 1824 because he couldn't bring Alvin; so on what grounds would he visit the following year? He then repents, returns the stone to Chase, and attends the revival in which his mother and others became Presbyterians. When he is rejected by religious leaders and his family is divided over religion, he returns to money digging. Gets Hyrum to borrow the stone from Chase, takes Samuel Lawrence on the hill to verify the existence of the plates, and continues to scry for treasure until trial in March 1826. At trial it becomes clear to JS that treasure seeing is dead end. His marriage to Emma and discussions with father-in-law also discouraged him. He then revived his story of getting the plates. JS had told his parents in 1827 that the messenger had told him to get the plates, but Lucy and the others didn't associate it with 22 September because he wasn't making annual visits and JS didn't tell them on what day he was supposed to go to the hill. When JS got the plates on 22 September that became the magical date that was projected backwards to 1823.

 

My sources for JS’s money digging in 1827 come from Martin Harris and Joseph Knight Sr. I quoted Harris on JS saying he had to quit the money digging company as well as the reason the diggers thought they had a right to the plates. Knight mentioned Beaman bring Lawrence to the Smith home and revealing the location of the plates under the hearth with his rods.

 

I’m not trying to be clever or tricky. Things like that don’t last. I’m just trying to do the best history I can.

[Dan Vogel]

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.

Mostly I'm concerned with getting the history right. I believe my reconstruction of the BOM witnesses is the strongest. Of course I have evidence for my reconstruction of the eight witnesses experience being visionary--you just don't like it. I also believe at the moment the best evidence points towards the BOM not being real history. This makes my reconstruction of the eight witnesses experience and discussion of JS's making the plates the more reasonable position.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE9Oas_zX50&list=TLwQGKXlBK3pttyWStKU0LJrO5OmyAbg-G

[Helen47]

Sorry it seems I might have derailed this thread. Hopefully we get back to issue of the existence of "gold plates". Is the negative work of Brodie and Vogel worthwhile? Did anyone see the plates uncovered? What technological development would those around Moroni's time allow such gold plates be available to use?

[Tacenda]

Mostly I'm concerned with getting the history right. I believe my reconstruction of the BOM witnesses is the strongest. Of course I have evidence for my reconstruction of the eight witnesses experience being visionary--you just don't like it. I also believe at the moment the best evidence points towards the BOM not being real history. This makes my reconstruction of the eight witnesses experience and discussion of JS's making the plates the more reasonable position.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE9Oas_zX50&list=TLwQGKXlBK3pttyWStKU0LJrO5OmyAbg-G

 

Notice how it says you are not even accepted by the anti's because they say you're not critical enough of JS?  You just can't win, can you?  

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Vogel

 

Reception:

"Vogel's scholarship on the topic has come under fire by Mormon apologists who allege he is biased and critical of Mormon faith claims.^[5] He is sometimes also criticised by ex-Mormons and anti-Mormons for not being sufficiently critical of Joseph Smith. Larry Morris praised his efforts to produce the award-winning multi-volume Early Mormon Documents.

Vogel has also edited volumes skeptical of the possibility of receiving the future through the word of God.

In 1991, Mormon religion professor and FARMS apologist Stephen E. Robinson suggested that Vogel's arguments closely resemble those of Korihor from the Book of Mormon.^[

Many of Dan Vogel's books have been critically reviewed by FARMS."

 

 

Do you mind me asking if  you were a member of the LDS church?  And if so what happened?  You could PM me, so as not to derail.  Thanks! 

[cdowis]

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

 

"Brilliant" in British English means -- "way to go", "great job", e.g. "a brilliant shot into the goal".  It is used in this case to indicate irony.

[cdowis]

Mostly I'm concerned with getting the history right.

 

A noble goal, but I would add the phrase, "according to my preconceptions."  We all have our bias, but I think your bias affects your professionalism.

 

I believe my reconstruction of the BOM witnesses is the strongest.

 

Of course.

 

Of course I have evidence for my reconstruction of the eight witnesses experience being visionary--you just don't like it.

 

An interesting statement.

 

Your "evidence" consists of source selection and methodology based on your preconceptions.  As we discussed previously, you tend to conflate statements regarding the three witness experience, which was a visionary experience, with the strictly naturalistic experience of the eight witnesses.  You then reject the first hand statement testimony of the witnesses with a preference to second and third hand statements.

 

You yourself experience a visionary experience as you construct your scenario out of whole cloth.

 

By golly, you are right.  I don't like what you have done. 

 

 

 I also believe at the moment the best evidence points towards the BOM not being real history. This makes my reconstruction of the eight witnesses experience and discussion of JS's making the plates the more reasonable position.(emphasis mone)

 

You had an agenda, and your selection of  sources and conclusions are driven by that agenda.

Thank you for your honesty. 

 

Edited September 23, 2013 by cdowis

[why me]

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. 

Thanks for the opinion. Now do you have any facts? I would appreciate some facts. Also please relate to me just how dumb the 11 witnesses were when they testified about the book of mormon and had such an experience that they could not deny it. Those plates that Joseph made must have been a work of art. But what about the heavenly experience of the other three. How was that staged managed?

[why me]

Sorry it seems I might have derailed this thread. Hopefully we get back to issue of the existence of "gold plates". Is the negative work of Brodie and Vogel worthwhile? Did anyone see the plates uncovered? What technological development would those around Moroni's time allow such gold plates be available to use?

8 members saw them uncovered. John Whitmer testified that he handled the plates and turned over the leaves. What more could be said. Likewise for the others. The three witnesses saw the plates also.

[Damien the Leper]

The "it takes faith" argument as proposed in Hebrews only goes so far. Either there can be verifiable evidence to a claim or there isn't. Speculation and allusions do very little to confirm a theory or hypothesis. An example of such would be the rabbit hole introduced in the thread on Brazil.

OTOH, I also reject the notion that the Book of Mormon has to be a historically accurate text. I cannot hold the biased single standard by accepting the historical claims attributed to Genesis, Exodus, Job, etc. This debate continues to become more monotonous and mundane the longer it is dragged out.

[Billy the Law]

Thanks for the opinion. Now do you have any facts? I would appreciate some facts. Also please relate to me just how dumb the 11 witnesses were when they testified about the book of mormon and had such an experience that they could not deny it. Those plates that Joseph made must have been a work of art. But what about the heavenly experience of the other three. How was that staged managed?

I think you've got a point with the witnesses. I don't know that the arguments against the validity of their words are very good, at least from what I've read. However, I trust my own examination of the contents of the BOM over what anyone else may say regarding its divinity. In my study and research I think there are many things that point to the possibility of fabrication. Yet nothing I will say will be new, and since you seem to have a good understanding of the issues I imagine it's not likely that either one of us will be enlightened. We'll just go back and forth until the thread is locked saying why each piece of evidence is valid or not valid, why my logic is inferior, and how you're sorry that I feel the way that I do. I'm raising the white flag in surrender. You and the others wore me down. It only took four days. You win. Brethren (and sisters), adieu (and no, that's not a good argument against the BOM).

[stemelbow]

In my reconstruction, JS goes to the hill in 1823 and 1824. He failed in 1824 because he couldn't bring Alvin; so on what grounds would he visit the following year? He then repents, returns the stone to Chase, and attends the revival in which his mother and others became Presbyterians. When he is rejected by religious leaders and his family is divided over religion, he returns to money digging. Gets Hyrum to borrow the stone from Chase, takes Samuel Lawrence on the hill to verify the existence of the plates, and continues to scry for treasure until trial in March 1826. At trial it becomes clear to JS that treasure seeing is dead end. His marriage to Emma and discussions with father-in-law also discouraged him. He then revived his story of getting the plates. JS had told his parents in 1827 that the messenger had told him to get the plates, but Lucy and the others didn't associate it with 22 September because he wasn't making annual visits and JS didn't tell them on what day he was supposed to go to the hill. When JS got the plates on 22 September that became the magical date that was projected backwards to 1823.

 

My sources for JS’s money digging in 1827 come from Martin Harris and Joseph Knight Sr. I quoted Harris on JS saying he had to quit the money digging company as well as the reason the diggers thought they had a right to the plates. Knight mentioned Beaman bring Lawrence to the Smith home and revealing the location of the plates under the hearth with his rods.

 

I’m not trying to be clever or tricky. Things like that don’t last. I’m just trying to do the best history I can.

 

 

Thanks for responding.  With what you said above I'd like a chance to take it back a little further.  It seems like, and I fear, we'll talk right past each other otherwise.

 

Pre-1826 event.  How do we know JS was involved in determining where to dig for Stowell?   It seems just as likely that JS was paid to help with the work.  Surely he was seen by Stowell as someone who could help them magically, or however you want to term it, but there seems to be little to nothing, aside from the hostile sources, that indicate he was in charge of the company.  It appears that some bitter relatives who wanted to blame someone came forward to blame Jospeh because as it turned out he was sought out for his ability to see hidden things. 

 

It appears JS was out to find a way to earn money.  This was such a way.  It doesn't seem like he was as heavily into money digging, particularly after his teenage days, as you seem to suggest, as I see it.  But we will see. 

[ERayR]

The "it takes faith" argument as proposed in Hebrews only goes so far. Either there can be verifiable evidence to a claim or there isn't. Speculation and allusions do very little to confirm a theory or hypothesis. An example of such would be the rabbit hole introduced in the thread on Brazil.

OTOH, I also reject the notion that the Book of Mormon has to be a historically accurate text. I cannot hold the biased single standard by accepting the historical claims attributed to Genesis, Exodus, Job, etc. This debate continues to become more monotonous and mundane the longer it is dragged out.

 

What is verifiable evidence?  A profound spiritual manifestation that I experience is certainly real to me and duplicatable by you, with the caveat that you must be prepare for it and accept it when given.  Whether you do or do not receive such a manifestation does not invalidate my experience nor am I required to validate my experience to you. 

 

I reject your notion that the Book of Mormon does not have to be historical.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't believe in the divinity of any Scripture. They are man made objects, and subject to all the faults, foibles, and mistakes of men. That being said they are Scripture so help lead us to God. Even the Book of Mormon claims to be made by man. Moroni pointed out its location long after his death.

 

There are certainly points that point to its validity as an ancient document. What those points can not do is prove its truth claims. No more than the tales of Homer proves that those ancient Greek Gods existed.

 

What makes you think I'd claim it is inferior? It may not be convincing in the light of other evidences, but that doesn't necessarily make it an inferior argument.

 

I hope you don't leave the forum. I do appreciate your contributions. But the choice is yours.

[why me]

I think you've got a point with the witnesses. I don't know that the arguments against the validity of their words are very good, at least from what I've read. However, I trust my own examination of the contents of the BOM over what anyone else may say regarding its divinity. In my study and research I think there are many things that point to the possibility of fabrication. Yet nothing I will say will be new, and since you seem to have a good understanding of the issues I imagine it's not likely that either one of us will be enlightened. We'll just go back and forth until the thread is locked saying why each piece of evidence is valid or not valid, why my logic is inferior, and how you're sorry that I feel the way that I do. I'm raising the white flag in surrender. You and the others wore me down. It only took four days. You win. Brethren (and sisters), adieu (and no, that's not a good argument against the BOM).

I tend to go by human nature in all this and I try to see the human being. These witnesses experienced something special or they were all psychopaths. Most lived to see some of the persecution that the mormons were experiencing. I have no idea what they thought about the persecution but obviously, the persecution did not make them come clean about their false experiences with the plates. In fact, they continued to hold on to those experiences. Something happened that they couldn't deny.

 

My guess would be that human nature would dictate that someone would have redrawn their testimony for the greater good, if it were a fraud.

[why me]

 

It appears JS was out to find a way to earn money.  This was such a way.  It doesn't seem like he was as heavily into money digging, particularly after his teenage days, as you seem to suggest, as I see it.  But we will see. 

The book of mormon was not going to bring him any money. In fact, it was a money loser and it gave impetus to much suffering. Joseph could have found a much easier way to make some cash, then to write a book, make plates, find some dupes to go along with it, face death by execution, experience untold hardship including  a tar and feathering etc. And why? To found a religion? For what purpose?

 

if I were him, i would just form a protestant church, look for converts through my preaching, and carry on in peace and harmony, soaking up the contributions.

[Damien the Leper]

What is verifiable evidence?  A profound spiritual manifestation that I experience is certainly real to me and duplicatable by you, with the caveat that you must be prepare for it and accept it when given.  Whether you do or do not receive such a manifestation does not invalidate my experience nor am I required to validate my experience to you. 

 

I reject your notion that the Book of Mormon does not have to be historical.

 

I never suggested that you needed to or had to validate your experience. Also, our spiritual experiences can just as easily be psychological manifestations of our own want and narcissism. I suppose that's fine as well.

 

Reject all you want.

[thesometimesaint]

The true miracle is that God for his own reasons has talked to men in our day.

[why me]

I never suggested that you needed to or had to validate your experience. Also, our spiritual experiences can just as easily be psychological manifestations of our own want and narcissism. I suppose that's fine as well.

 

Reject all you want.

Who knows. But my own experience after I prayed about the book of mormon was not out of want or narcissism. It was much more deeper than want or my own ego. It was an experience that I still cannot deny and keeps my foot still in the door. My ego would have rationalized it all away long ago.

[ERayR]

Also, our spiritual experiences can just as easily be psychological manifestations of our own want and narcissism. I suppose that's fine as well.

 

Reject all you want.

 

Call it what you will but those who have received such manifestation are well aware of its validity and their own sanity.

[Damien the Leper]

Who knows. But my own experience after I prayed about the book of mormon was not out of want or narcissism. It was much more deeper than want or my own ego. It was an experience that I still cannot deny and keeps my foot still in the door. My ego would have rationalized it all away long ago.

 

Apologies. I didn't mean to suggest that such is the case every time. This still does not dismiss the psychological aspect either. It would be very odd to suggest that we can completely disentangle our psychology from our spirituality.

Edited September 23, 2013 by Valentinus