Book of Mormon Authorship w/ Dan Vogel Pt. 1 | Ep. 1066

[@questioneverything55]

There is also the fact that Joey's dad was part of the New Israelite movement, which is important.

[@jonmoonswesternnyoutdoorad5750]

The Billboard campaign is genius

[@madeleineclark283]

That's how they got me!

[@runningshoespro3810]

Dan would be such an amazing high school social studies teacher. Dan, please consider still becoming a teacher.

[@somniumisdreaming]

Are you kidding he rambles and looks tired, ill or wasted here.

[@hippymama100]

@@somniumisdreaming hey now, that's pretty harsh. Being tired, or ill, isn't a character defect. Saying he's wasted is a fairly heavy accusation, and I'm presuming you have no information to back it up.

[@bouji_]

I had no idea that this guy was a grocery store clerk. That's actually kind of crazy. I had just assumed he was a history professor.

[@kamilziemian995]

Very interesting discussion. What videos as should watch next, if I want to better understand what the Book of Mormon is?

[@questioneverything55]

Did his book of that middle period ever come out? Is see: --Natural Born Seer: Joseph Smith, American Prophet, 1805-1830 --Glorious in Persecution: Joseph Smith, American Prophet, 1839-1844 I don't see anything about the middle period 1831-1838 or whatever the dates will be on the Smith-Pettit Foundation website.

[@questioneverything55]

Is the preacher he mentioned Charles Morford (27 SEP 1769-9 APR 1849) from Victor, NY which was not far from Palmyra? He was a Universalist preacher not Methodist, correct? Where can one get these unpublished sermons? Morford, Charles, 1769- 1849. Sermons and Poems, 1818-1824. Study Center for Early Religious Life in Western New York, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Quoting from: Reviving His Work: Social Isolation, Religious Fervor and Reform in the Burned Over District of Western New York, 1790-1860 in the Burned Over District of Western New York, 1790-1860 by Patricia Lewis Noel, pg 66-67. Universalists also adopted revivalist tendencies along with some Presbyterians and Congregationalists, at least in rural areas. Charles Morford was a Universalist clergyman in Victor, Ontario County in 18 18. Morford's sermons and poetry were peppered with references to revivals. His chief desire was to provoke a revival in his own congregation. "I have often wished that in some way, I could be made instrumental in bringing about a Reformation, and Revival," he wrote. "I hope for a Revival...I feel jealous for the glory of God, and I long to see a most powerful display of his irresistible power and grace amongst us, that, Sinners may be saved, Christ and his Cross honored." Morford was crushed when he realized he had a congregation of so-called "backsliders" on his hands. "More than eighteen months ago I foresaw and feared what has now befallen us," he admonished his flock from the pulpit, "as a Church and people, that is, that the Spirit would be withdrawn from us." After an initial period of holy fervor, Morford's congregation fell into "deplorable" condition. Morford "sought to make [you] sensible of the miserable and dangerous state that you were in by nature, and shewed you the only way to escape." In a sermon, Morford complained that after a period of "peace, and brotherly love", the congregation had lapsed into "Stupidity, Indifference, lukewarmness; coldness and deadness." Morford's despondency illustrates why some non-evangelical ministers avoided revivalism. More importantly, it illustrates a shift in the core beliefs of this rural group of Universalists, from believing all were universally saved, to fear that some in the congregation had not achieved salvation. Morford's sermons and poetry began to sound like revivalist doctrine. The Quakers, who did not hold revivals, also experienced minor evangelical influence. Evangelical Quakers formed their own sect called Gurneyism. Gurneyites in New York State emerged from rural areas, including Scipio, Cayuga County. Because of the intensity of evangelism in mal areas, transitionally non-evangelical sects came under strong evangelical, revivalist influence.

[@rodneysylvester8249]

Jon, Bryce Blankenagel no longer supports the Spalding theory. I think he may have at one point, but in later episodes he describes similar issues to what Dan gives here.

[@MrNetMan11]

Bryce doesn't outright reject it, but he recognises the lack of 'smoking gun' direct evidence showing connections. See his April Mormonstories podcast.

[@batmanuel08]

I still can't find the free version of Dan's book on signature books website. I really want to read this! If anyone finds a link, I'd be super grateful.

[@mormonstories]

signaturebookslibrary.org/joseph-smith-the-making-of-a-prophet/?fbclid=IwAR1zSlZo1_7l6TqgwXkcXiukyrUo_XVdtg4e_Y8Fui9g47yxJK0G1esSnbc

[@beholdhisglory1657]

mormonstories, Thank you!

[@batmanuel08]

@@mormonstories Thank you so much!

[@kamilziemian995]

@@mormonstories Thank you.

[@davidstout6051]

I find it amazing and sad that leaving a particular denomination requires a workshop/retreat. When I left Catholicism I just walked away and joined a church that fit better.

[@davidstout6051]

@@davidhogg8721 I think you've written a good article, most of which I would agree with, albeit with putting the real presence in the context of the Passover. That meal re-presents the Exodus in such a way that the participants are understood to actual participants (note Paul's words about participating in Christ's body) in the Exodus. This of course does not mean that everyone engages in literal time travel. In like manner Communion actually re-presents the Passion so that we are there. I a not a symbolic interpreter of the Eucharist (neither we're Calvin and Luther, though Zwingli was). Fun fact: at the time of the Reformation many lay people only partook of the elements once a year. In the 1500s you'd be more likely to actually commune in a Protestant church than a Catholic one and you would also have access to the cup. Thanks for inviting me to read your article. I enjoyed them.

[@questioneverything55]

What does he think that Joey did with the plates? Was Brgiham or someone able to snag them after he died or did Joeydump them before that? Does the powers that be in that organization have them, but have not admitted it, like it took them years to admit to the stone in the bottom of the hat trick?

[@charlesmendeley9823]

The plates were taken back by the angel after Smith finished the translation. This is part of the mainstream narrative, no need to ask Dan Vogel about it. It's written in the BoM itself, Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith, by the end of the text.

[@questioneverything55]

@@charlesmendeley9823 umm yeah okay Mr. Convenient, and the Bible says the Sun stopped moving too

[@donnababi5767]

At times with Dan I get lost in what he is saying...where does he get all of this information..?

[@saltech3444]

I personally don't buy the warped memory theory. The Book of Mormon WAS NOT PUBLISHED until three years before the Hurlbut affidavits were taken. If Book of Mormon was published in 1818, say, I could buy the idea that their memories were warped. But to me it is impossible that all these people could have confounded a book they just heard about, with something they heard read out decades before. The Hurlbut affidavits also repeatedly mention the existence of two manuscripts, not one. This, to me, goes beyond mere "prompting". To me, the only way the Spalding-Rigdon Theory could be untrue, is if Mormonism Unvailed itself is a sham (or at least the Hurlbut sections). That is to say, Spalding-Rigdon can be untrue, but to me the nature of the affidavits mean that the theory can only be untrue if Hurlbut and/or Howe were being deliberately deceptive. I am perfectly willing to believe that, but I would need more arguments. For example, Howe nearly fainting when he heard that Manuscript Story was rediscovered might be him fearing that someone might work out that Manuscript Found did not exist but was invented for the Unvailed book. On the other hand, the fact that the deponents continued to defend and expand their statements over the years to me sort of rules out the idea that Unvailed was totally a sham. Surely this makes denying the theory itself a conspiracy theory. Are we expected to believe that these deponents kept to their stories under the continuing influence of bribes? I also don't understand why the S-R Theory lacks parsimony. Why exactly does the entire Smith family have to be in on the scam? Why can't it be just Mr Ridgon passing a copy of the manuscript on to Mr Smith and recommending him improvise a new text based on it? The doctrinal bits in the book could just be Smith flexing his improvisational sermon skills (or perhaps something Rigdon simply inserted into the copy he handed over to Smith), rather than a sign that Mr Ridgon and Mr Smith laboriously rewrote the whole manuscript.

[@davidstout6051]

Oh and I'm delighted to learn a book I got in Kirkland 10 years ago is now worth a new iPhone 😁

[@davidstout6051]

Sorry for the poor syntax and spelling. I'm using my phone

[@KyleRoth]

The one you just got?

[@davidstout6051]

@@KyleRoth No. The comment was made a couple of years ago. I think you’d need the original BoM manuscript to afford today’s flagship phones. 😀

[@KyleRoth]

:D

[@fezbarbosa580]

Well , if Sidney Rigdon wasn’t around The fabrication of BOM , Boeing wise and eloquent , why he Accepted Joseph Smith jr and BOM ?

[@MrNetMan11]

I didn't find Dan's rejection of the Spalding-Rigdon theory particularly convincing. He rightly says it would have required a conspiracy between Smith, Rigdon, Cowdrey and Pratt, but he fails to recognise that the E.D Howe book with the Spalding affidavits would also require a conspiracy between all those participants (who never changed their story). In listening to his style, I conclude that Dan mostly doesn't like this theory because it isn't neat enough for his liking. There's not enough direct evidence correlating the needed events and he doesn't like softer, coincidental-type connections. Fair enough. But it seems to me that his reasons for rejecting the theory fall into the same bucket, lacking direct evidence of his theories (e.g. the implanted memories) and assuming other people were lying. In reading the Book of Mormon, its differing styles, emphasis and content makes it reasonable to assume multiple authors were involved. I guess that could mean multiple ancient Native American prophets, or it could more reasonably be the 19th century conspiratorial authors (plus Spalding) mentioned above.

[@freshofftheboat4305]

MrNetMan11 Great point

[@markrichards6684]

@@paulgregersen3570 It's a cult.

[@charlesmendeley9823]

Can you elaborate on the different styles, and how a single author cannot produce these? It is clear that the book at least contains narrative portions and sermons, but where do you specifically see differences in style which cannot be mimicked by one author?

[@MrNetMan11]

@@charlesmendeley9823 Charles, I'm no expert on writing analysis. I'm recalling some long ago studies that concluded that multiple authors were likely, in addition, as I said, to my own impression as I read. Another unprovable authorship theory that did the rounds a few years ago was known as "The Lucy Code" that postulated that it was likely that Joseph's parents and brother Hyrum could have been major contributors to the BoM, through the association with Dartmouth College and Lucy's published diary that remarks on some very convenient coincidences. No time to go into detail here, but it's another interesting theory that can never be proven or disproven due to lack of direct evidence or admission.

[@charlesmendeley9823]

@@MrNetMan11 Thanks for clarifying. I am currently reading "how the Book of Mormon came to pass" by Lars Nielsen, which systematically covers different authorship theories, including family conspiracies as well as variants of the Spaulding-Rigdon theory. Research in that area is ugly as most historical souces had an agenda.

[@sulmahaney9568]

Dan at 50 minutes or so you say a Whitmer brother goes off to teach to the Lamanites do you know of other instances of teachings to Lamanites. I was interested in that and the council of fifty and possibly a Smith led Indian takeover you hint about that in the first interviews with John at your house. In David Whitmers address to all believers in Christ he says Joseph Smith wasnt legit because Joseph Smith never tried to convince the Indians of Mormonism yet if I remember right Grant Palmer also says he did do you remember the sources.

[@danvogel6802]

The first Lamanite mission was led by Oliver Cowdery, along with Parley P. Pratt, Ziba Peterson, and Peter Whitmer Jr. They left New York in October 1830 and stopped by Kirtland, Ohio, where they converted Sidney Rigdon and more than 100 others. They went on to Independence, Missouri, where tried to cross into Indian Territory and preach to Native Americas until they were kicked out by the Indian Agent. This is covered in the History of the Church and Pratt’s Autobiography. This ended the Indian mission. The union of believing Gentiles and Indians is predicted in 3 Nephi 20 and 21, which concerned the Missourians. I’m not sure what Palmer said or what sources to which you refer.

[@brianhaney7703]

@@danvogel6802 I'm sure there is a ton to say on the subject here is just a tad that got me more curious and reminded me of things I researched in may last year. kzbin.info/www/bejne/fXWmnqeAgauEqpI here is Grant Palmer talking about the Joseph Smith take over some it starts about 18-25 minutes in this is from an address to all believers in Christ en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Address_to_All_Believers_in_Christ/Part_Second/Chapter_III Page 26 ...... This “Choice Seer" will be of that seed. His name will be Joseph, and his father's name Joseph. He is to translate sealed records yet to come forth, (spoken of in 2 Nephi xi:18). "And not to the bringing forth my word only, saith the Lord, BUT TO THE CONVINCING THEM OF MY WORD." How many Indians did Brother Joseph convince? He never preached a sermon to them in his life to my knowledge. May God help you brethren to understand this chapter, for it can only be understood by the enlightening power of the Holy Ghost. It is very plain to me. I speak in full on this subject in chapter X. I understand that whitmer singles out Smith here but shouldn't the fact that Smith sent people to try and convert the Indians count. I guess I'm really just curious about Smith desire to take over

[@brianhaney8511]

@@brianhaney7703 mormon stories talks about it I never realized it I was watching it mostly on you tube thanks dan for the insights www.mormonstories.org/truth-claims/joseph-smith/council-of-fifty/ any great new insight would be greatly appreciated

[@shepsb]

John, you talk too much. I've turned into various videos to listen the your guests but end up hearing you talk for the majority of the time. This attached video is a good example; It isn't until around 24 minutes before the topic of this video is begun, then you interrupt and over talk Mr. Vogel. Please let your guests do most of the talking. Otherwise these are great.

[@jaysoncohen8250]

Disagree.

[@protochris]

mumbling but no clear facts.

[@nirtlocj]

There's DOZENS of theories of where the Book of Mormon came from, and plenty more on the way. Hundreds of books, lecture series by "brilliant historians", computer analytics, symposiums, and podcasts ad infinitum, and they still can't figure it out. It's pure entertainment watching the "scholars" fall over themselves trying to figure out how the backwoods bumpkin, Joe Smith, came up with the B of M.

[@somniumisdreaming]

Dozens of ways to fraudulently create a book, so plenty of options for the charlatan's Smith's claims. Scholars do not need quotation marks.

[@charlesmendeley9823]

It is easy to prove a plagiarism if you have the original manuscript. It is rather difficult to prove someone cobbled together ideas from the social milieu of the time. This is what the interview is mostly about. The ideas of the Book of Mormon were floating around in people's minds. When I encountered the narrative of the restoration and the Book of Mormon, I thought these ideas were unique. However, after studying the historical background and milieu, I see that most, if not all ideas are taken from the milieu and are not unique or surprising. But proving that he took idea A from person X is much more difficult, if not impossible. The recent book "how the book of Mormon came to pass" tries to do exactly that by discussing ideas in the Book of Mormon allegedly stemming from the German Egyptologists Athanasius Kircher.