Lars Nielsen censors Vogel

[bill4long]

The awesome rhythm section

[Shulem]

I think Mr. Vogel includes this story as if to suggest that Joseph Smith had chosen the name Nephi for one of his main characters perhaps because it had something to do with sacred fire, which might have appealed to Smith as a village magician—although Vogel doesn’t connect those dots explicitly. But there is nothing about sacred fire, mystical fire, or holy fire in any writings by Joseph Smith or about Joseph Smith. He does mention fire and even eternal fire in the Doctrine and Covenants, but only in generally religious tropes—such as hellfire, baptism by fire, conversion by fire, flaming swords, etc.

Lars, do the writings of the Book of Mormon count or are they chopped liver? How about his First Vision?

Lars, you are dead wrong, see here, please:

And it came to pass as he prayed unto the Lord, there came a pillar of fire and dwelt upon a rock before him

And the Lord will create upon every dwelling-place of mount Zion, and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day and the shining of flaming fire by night; for upon all the glory of Zion shall be a defence.

And the light of Israel shall be for a  fire, and his Holy One for a flame

And it came to pass that Nephi and Lehi were encircled about as if by  fire, even insomuch that they durst not lay their hands upon them for fear lest they should be burned. Nevertheless, Nephi and Lehi were not burned; and they were as standing in the midst of fire and were not burned.

And when they saw that they were encircled about with a  pillar of fire, and that it burned them not, their hearts did take courage.

...behold, they saw that they were encircled about, yea every soul, by a pillar of fire.

And  Nephi and Lehi were in the midst of them; yea, they were encircled about; yea, they were as if in the midst of a flaming fire, yet it did harm them not...

And as they looked to behold they cast their eyes towards heaven, and they saw the heavens open, and they saw angels descending out of heaven as it were in the midst of fire; and they came down and  encircled those little ones about, and they were encircled about with fire; and the angels did minister unto them.

And now this:

...calling upon the Lord a piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me...

...I called on the Lord in mighty prayer, a pillar of fire appeared above my head, it presently rested down upon my me head, and filled me with joy unspeakable, a personage appeard in the midst, of this pillar of flame which was spread all around, and yet nothing consumed...

Lars does not know what he is talking about. Wouldn't you say, Dan?

[dan vogel]

Shulum,

I included the background story for Nephi in the Apocrypha for context, not to make a connection to folk magic or fire. I wouldn’t make such an insignificant connection, but Lars seem to. He also go on and on about how The Romance of Celes mentions fire, which proves absolutely nothing. For me, this is how Lars wastes our time with nonsense commentary.

[Shulem]

Shulum,

I included the background story for Nephi in the Apocrypha for context, not to make a connection to folk magic or fire. I wouldn’t make such an insignificant connection, but Lars seem to. He also go on and on about how The Romance of Celes mentions fire, which proves absolutely nothing. For me, this is how Lars wastes our time with nonsense commentary.

Fair enough. I'm way behind in following these presentations and don't want to put my foot in my mouth, but what caught my attention in my last post is that Lars contends that "in all likelihood, Smith probably didn’t even know that the second book of Maccabees even existed." That just doesn't ring right in my mind. Smith knew the Bible pretty good and I would think he knew about the Apocrypha and had access to it. Did he not?

[Rivendale]

If you haven't heard, Lars Nielsen has responded to my two-part review of his new book, "How the Book of Mormon Came to Pass"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8boa0EOJVo

I have responded to Lars Nielsen response to my review, but he won’t let anyone see my responses. Just like his book, he has made some serious mistakes in his response to me. Why isn’t he transparent?


For those who haven’t seen my two-part review of Nielsen’s book “How the Book of Mormon Came to Pass,” here are the links:

Part 1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWkjGZ8R1gg&t=2891s

Part 2 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsT32kVxSjQ&t=131s

Do you have any idea why he isn't transparent? We see this all the time with new apologetics when they are tentative on their information.

[dan vogel]

Shulum,

I included the background story for Nephi in the Apocrypha for context, not to make a connection to folk magic or fire. I wouldn’t make such an insignificant connection, but Lars seem to. He also go on and on about how The Romance of Celes mentions fire, which proves absolutely nothing. For me, this is how Lars wastes our time with nonsense commentary.

Fair enough. I'm way behind in following these presentations and don't want to put my foot in my mouth, but what caught my attention in my last post is that Lars contends that "in all likelihood, Smith probably didn’t even know that the second book of Maccabees even existed." That just doesn't ring right in my mind. Smith knew the Bible pretty good and I would think he knew about the Apocrypha and had access to it. Did he not?

Lars evidently didn't know that Protestant Bibles included the Apocrypha and were not removed until about the 1880s.

[dan vogel]

If you haven't heard, Lars Nielsen has responded to my two-part review of his new book, "How the Book of Mormon Came to Pass"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8boa0EOJVo

I have responded to Lars Nielsen response to my review, but he won’t let anyone see my responses. Just like his book, he has made some serious mistakes in his response to me. Why isn’t he transparent?


For those who haven’t seen my two-part review of Nielsen’s book “How the Book of Mormon Came to Pass,” here are the links:

Part 1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWkjGZ8R1gg&t=2891s

Part 2 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsT32kVxSjQ&t=131s

Do you have any idea why he isn't transparent? We see this all the time with new apologetics when they are tentative on their information.

He might be hesitant about engaging with me because he doesn't like my tone and/or he doesn't know how to answer the Romance of the Celes criticism.

[Dr Exiled]

He doesn't like the tone when getting owned. Hence the move to style criticism instead of substance.

[Shulem]

For me, this is how Lars wastes our time with nonsense commentary.

Gee-wiz, I'm nearly two and a half hours into Lar's video and I must say that it's loaded with irrelevant academic historical material that need not be included. It's no doubt his way to show how knowledgeable he is on subject matter (such as the name Mormon) that has no real bearing and is just filler material to add to his cause. What a f-ing waste of time.

This reminds me of LDS apologists going on and on about things that really don't matter when it comes to defending the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3. On and on and on about things that have no bearing when it comes to solving the equation using a simple formula based on proven methods.

[Shulem]

The awesome rhythm section

Okay, wow, I finished the 4 hour Vogel smackdown committed by Lars in support of the Spalding theory through his own academic lenses. And there is yet part II to follow? omfg

Dan, he is out to get you! He is out to ruin you! He is out to bury you in a pile of dung. His ego is inflated and it shows!

I will be glad to offer more commentary and insight from my perspective, all in good time.

PS. I would not have been able to watch the whole thing had I not sped it up to 1.25 as you suggested.

The beat goes on! Bill4long, hell yeah!