Tonto Schwartz wrote:I just recently listened to Dan Vogel's two part You Tube video on the Evolution of Mormon Authority Claims. As I understand him, Vogel concludes that Joseph and Cowdery made up the claims about John The Baptist and Peter James and John restoring the two priesthoods around 1834-1836 and that at least by that time Cowdery was a co-conspirator with Joseph.
I've been out of the loop for a while, but that's news to me. As far as I knew Vogel believed that only Joseph Smith was in on any "fraud" or "con" and that all the rest, including Cowdery, were honest dupes. I seriously doubt Vogel would use the term "co-conspirator with Joseph." (If so that would be real progress). Can you direct me to this video?
I completely agree, but I think Cowdery was in on the con from the beginning.
Agreed, which is why I doubt Vogel would be as forthcoming as you suggest.
One point I have not previously made is that even though faithful Mormon witnesses stated that Joseph translated with the stone in the hat all of the existing Book of Mormon, I have a real hard time swallowing that story.
We are on the same page. I have a
really hard time with that. As I recall, this was discussed in some detail on the long thread I linked to. Seems much more reasonable that the head in hat/stone routine was an act done for show, and hence, rare.
It seems more likely to me that Joseph used the stone in the hat as a prop when people were around, but the rest of the time did not.
Exactly. I posted the above before I read this sentence. You and I are on the same page.
Joseph could not have memorized all of the outside material that he incorporated in the Book of Mormon, especially all of the Isiah material that goes on page after page.
Again, ditto. The errors which match the KJVB attest to that. As I recall, Vogel concedes that a KJVB was copied (pretty hard to deny that) but attributes the rest to something akin to automatic writing. This seems unlikely to me. If I recall correctly, this is what brought up the Cowdery question in our lengthy discussion. I suggested that if we concede that a Bible was copied, then Cowdery is the most likely person to have done the copying. So to my mind, that strongly implies Cowdery was in on the con from the beginning - or at least from the time he arrived in Palmyra. Vogel thinks otherwise and sides with the more LDS-friendly notion that Cowdery was never asked about a Bible, therefore he wasn't hiding anything. In fact, for Vogel, all of the early witnesses (except for Smith) were honest dupes.
Cowdery had to know how Joseph was translating and that the stories which he told to his followers and his followers repeated concerning the stone in the hat were not true. I know some followers such as David and Elizabeth Whitner claimed to have watched him for hours, but I think they are exaggerating to enhance their importance and the supernatural origins of the Book of Mormon.
Not sure we have any testimony that states point blank "I watched him do this for hours."
Emma also claimed that Joseph used the stone in the hat and that if she had written anything incorrect, even a spelling error, Joseph would correct her before going on with the translation.
Actually God allegedly would not let the translation proceed until the correction was made.
Emma's story is clearly false as shown by, among other things, all of the many hundreds of spelling and grammatical errors in the original Book of Mormon. If God was correcting any errors as the translation proceeded, He sure did a lousy job.
Agreed. As usual, the Mormons have an answer for this. See D & C 1:24. With regard to Emma's testimony, you might find this page interesting:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16575&start=2163Emma was no more honest on this subject that she was in denying that Joseph ever practiced polygamy and that Brigham started polygamy in Utah.
Again, we're on the same page. I think most people who look at this rationally will come to that conclusion. The early witness testimony is highly questionable at best because all of them were invested in Mormonism and had close ties to Joseph Smith. It would be like thinking we could get reliable testimony about the inner workings of the FLDS from devoted followers of Warren Jeffs. You might get something closer to the truth from disaffected members, but even then you need to weigh their words with a grain of salt since they may still have loved ones in the group.
At least one reason Vogel is against any notion of "conspiracy" because he rejects the Spalding Theory, which suggests that at least Smith, Cowdery and probably Rigdon conspired to produce the Book of Mormon. This is why I would find it very interesting if Vogel views Cowdery as a "co-conspirator" with Smith at least by 1836.
