Vogel video on Book of Mormon geography

[Shulem]

Parley P. Pratt was a shmuck and a Goddamn idiot. His tunnel vision of a hemispheric model was based on anything OTHER than what is in the Book of Mormon text which he failed to calculate in an intelligent way. Pratt was a f-ing dope! When it came to time, distance, and area -- Pratt was a retard! I have zero confidence in his ability to calculate anything of value let alone Book of Mormon geography! He was stupid.

Here are a couple of clips from "Key to the Science of Theology" published in 1855.

By this science the Prophets Lehi and Nephi came out with a colony from Jerusalem, in the days of Jeremiah the Prophet, and after wandering for eight years in the wilderness of Arabia, came to the sea coast, built a vessel, obtained from the Lord a compass to guide them on the way, and finally landed in safety on the coast of what is now called Chili, in South America.

So, Mr. Pratt, what the hell did you ever do to calculate the distances from Lehi's landing, City of Nephi, Zarahemla, Bountiful, narrow neck, Cumorah? You don't know jack!

Among these we will make honourable mention of the Prophets Jared, Ether, Lehi, Nephi, Mosiah, Alma, Abinadi, Mormon, and Moroni, who wrote and prophesied in the western hemisphere, during the several ages intervening between the time of the dispersion at Babel, and the fifth century of the Christian era.

Shut the hell up, Pratt. You're a dope. You have zero credibility with me. I can read Book of Mormon text and know for a fact that you don't know what you are talking about. I'm sorry you influenced Vogel in which he remains fooled to this day no thanks to you.

[Shulem]

I've postulated on this board that Pratt likely originated the idea of Lehi landing in Chile in consequence to the hemispheric model and the Panama neck. However, I'm open to the idea that Smith originated the idea in effort to throw off the true geography in which he used to create his story and figured that after many centuries Lehi's descendants would cover the entire hemisphere.

But, I'm suspicious that Pratt was the original instigator and I think Smith went along with it. What indication is there to suggest that Pratt was the person who suggested Chile as being Lehi's landing? Well, interestingly enough, Pratt went on a mission to Chile in 1852 and spent 4 months in Valparaíso in a vain attempt to convert the Catholics to Mormonism. Also, this port city in which he landed is about 200 miles south of the 30th degree line in which Lehi was said to have landed which is almost dead on for a country with a coastline extending for thousands of miles. It seems that Pratt was on a personal mission to Chile and figured he would start at Lehi's landing. This certainly suggests that he had a strong passion for the Chile Book of Mormon connection.

Blame it on Pratt!

[Shulem]

a purported revelation

In the video clip above, Vogel asserts that it must have been by revelation that Joseph Smith determined Lehi's landing and that's why Richards & Little added the heading for "LEHI'S TRAVELS" — Revelation to Joseph the Seer., in A COMPENDIUM OF THE DOCTRINES OF THE GOSPEL., 1884, But the fact is that Smith never formerly announced Chile as a revelation but it became a matter of conjecture and tradition in the Church -- hearsay.

[Shulem]

Obviously, I've come to the conclusion that Vogel's video is not entirely a fair presentation but is totally slanted in the direction that if Joseph Smith said something or was heard to say something or agreed with something or did not object to something being said -- THEN, he endorsed it to what he believed in his mind and heart as something that was factual.

The problem with Vogel's presentation is that he does not take into consideration that Smith may have simply been employing more deception and didn't really give a rat's ass where Lehi landed just so long as the Mormons accepted his book and sustained him as prophet.

So, I am disappointed in Vogel's overall analysis because it falls short and fails to consider the possibilities. I think Vogel should do a Part II and get it right the second time around.

I believe this pushback on my part is fully warranted.

[dan vogel]

a purported revelation

In the video clip above, Vogel asserts that it must have been by revelation that Joseph Smith determined Lehi's landing and that's why Richards & Little added the heading for "LEHI'S TRAVELS" — Revelation to Joseph the Seer., in A COMPENDIUM OF THE DOCTRINES OF THE GOSPEL., 1884, But the fact is that Smith never formerly announced Chile as a revelation but it became a matter of conjecture and tradition in the Church -- hearsay.

Now you sound like an apologist. If you recall, I argued that Richards probably got the idea that Lehi's Travels was a revelation from Bernhisel, who apparently copied it in 1845.

[Shulem]

a purported revelation

In the video clip above, Vogel asserts that it must have been by revelation that Joseph Smith determined Lehi's landing and that's why Richards & Little added the heading for "LEHI'S TRAVELS" — Revelation to Joseph the Seer., in A COMPENDIUM OF THE DOCTRINES OF THE GOSPEL., 1884, But the fact is that Smith never formerly announced Chile as a revelation but it became a matter of conjecture and tradition in the Church -- hearsay.

Now you sound like an apologist. If you recall, I argued that Richards probably got the idea that Lehi's Travels was a revelation from Bernhisel, who apparently copied it in 1845.

Well, you did argue for several positions taken regarding the origin of the statement referencing "revelation" to Lehi's travels"

1. The tradition regarding Joseph Smith's inspired authorship is correct
2. Joseph Smith authored the statement but it's purported revelatory status is questionable
3. Fredrick G. Williams, Smith's scribe, is the real author of the statement which may or may not be inspired

But then it's like you're talking to apologists when referencing the placement of the added heading by Richards & Little who attributed revelation to the Chile destination, you ask rather rhetorically:

How else could one know the exact latitudes in Lehi's journey if not by revelation, who else could make such a statement besides Joseph Smith? The reasons for Richards & Little believing such was the case will be discussed in detail later.

And you provided lots of details. You discuss how F.G. Williams was said to have had revelation about Lehi's travels at the dedication of the Kirtland temple. Manuscripts, manuscripts, etc. And much more!

B.H. Roberts questioned the claim of revelation and authority for Chile in Lehi's Travel's, and thus, Book of Mormon apologetics was born.

Dan, your podcast was packed with a lot of information and interesting facts. But when it comes down to it, the question you pose about who else could make such a statement besides Joseph Smith in reference to where Lehi landed packs a hell of a punch! It totally supports your hemispheric model and ideas and yet neglects to take into consideration that Smith was simply telling more lies in an effort to cover up the true geography in which he imagined.

Sorry, but I disagree with you. The Pratts were dumb enough to not comprehend the limited geography in the text but NOT Joseph Smith! I will argue all day in defending Smith insomuch as he was too smart for that crap.

[Shulem]

I don't think Vogel is being fair about his overall assessment in which he spent a lot of time and effort in support of linking the hemispheric model with the Chile connection which the early saints believed had originated from Joseph Smith, whether by revelation or not. What modern apologists think makes no difference. All we need to do is weigh the evidence that existed in Smith's day and thereafter with those who were linked to it; which is what Vogel does in his presentation. But in doing so he neglects to mention that Smith may have simply been faking it and covering up OTHER geographic locations used to develop his story such Delmarva which is a plausible template in which he used to map his stories.

You're not being fair, Dan; I'm calling you out on that! You have to take into consideration that a man who is guilty of creating a massive pious fraud is also capable of lying and covering up for that fraud after the fact. That is why I consider your presentation to be incomplete and only serves to supports your hemispheric Moundbuilder pet theory. We can agree that Smith borrowed from multiple sources to come up with his grand idea for a new book of scripture but in doing so you have to take into consideration motives and ideas that run contrary to your own perceived conclusions.