Dan Vogel versus the late Ted Chandler

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
_vessr
_Emeritus
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 9:47 am

Re: Dan Vogel versus the late Ted Chandler

Post by _vessr »

The Erotic Apologist wrote:
vessr wrote:4. Why did it matter to Ted and Dan whether or not the manuscript was copied or dictated? Couldn’t reasonable minds conclude that the manuscript was fraudulent regardless?

I’m pretty sure Dan would be amenable towards explaining his position on the importance of translation vs dictation. Have you contacted him? In any case, I would readily agree that reasonable minds can and have concluded the Book of Mormon manuscript is fraudulent, i.e. not divine. If Dan, for whatever reason, is not forthcoming, you might try attacking the problem from a direction other than the process of translation. There are many avenues of research open to you.


Thanks, E.

Yes, I have sent a message to Dan via this forum and hope to hear from him. I have also tried to reach Ted, but his line was busy. :) As far as avenues of research open to me, I agree. I would like more light on the subject at hand, however, before I take another street or avenue.
_Tobin
_Emeritus
Posts: 8417
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:01 pm

Re: Dan Vogel versus the late Ted Chandler

Post by _Tobin »

Bret Ripley wrote:If Cowdery didn't get it from Smith (or perhaps an Angel), the alternative seems to be that the second highest-ranking person in the church was just making stuff up. At any rate, here is where you lay out your evidence, presumably statements made by Joseph Smith and Angels, that show that Smith's friend and confidant Second Elder Cowdery didn't know what he was talking about:
Clearly not since you've yet to provide any definitive evidence that Joseph Smith or the Angel Moroni ever said it.
Bret Ripley wrote:
I really can't believe you'd offer someone's conjecture as proof of anything.
And here is where you present evidence that Cowdery's statements were meant as "conjecture":
While we're at it, maybe you could also explain the reason for your conjecture that there are two Cumorahs.
I never said there were two Cumorahs. This is just another example of your ridiculous assumptions here.
Bret Ripley wrote:
Again, just another ridiculous argument from a Mormon critic.
Nota bene: lending credence to an in-context quotation of one of the most important early church leaders amounts to a "ridiculous argument of a Mormon critic." Gee, Tobin, why so tense?
I'm simply pointing out the obvious facts that neither Joseph Smith nor the Angel Moroni ever said that was the Hill Cumorah. I find it very interesting that you just assume it was based on conjecture by people that would have no idea given that fact. But, as I've said, the Mormon critic loves his infantile assertions.
Last edited by Guest on Mon Jan 28, 2013 1:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
_Tobin
_Emeritus
Posts: 8417
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:01 pm

Re: Dan Vogel versus the late Ted Chandler

Post by _Tobin »

bcuzbcuz wrote:To Tobin: Just point me in the right direction and I'll get out my metal detector and find all the swords of the Nephite-Lamanite battles.
To bcuzbcuz: Why don't you try speaking with God someday instead? It might do wonders.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
_Tobin
_Emeritus
Posts: 8417
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:01 pm

Re: Dan Vogel versus the late Ted Chandler

Post by _Tobin »

vessr wrote:<snip>
Let’s start with the premise that there is a loving Heavenly Father who cares more deeply about me than any earthIy father, mother, friend, or acquaintance could. He might also think it unfortunate that I lost part of my faculties to a stroke. Or it may serve a greater purpose in his plan for my ultimate well-being. But a loving father would not take my faith/belief gene away from me and cast me out because I simply wanted to use what faculties I have left to find Him. He might tell me, as you have, to skip the process of believing; but that is because he knows I’m not capable of believing without studying things out in my mind, again, what mind I have left.

He would not treat an investigator as a piece of meat to be thrown to the devilish wolves because he sought for Him with what faculties he have left. If I am not able, mentally, to “ask God” at this time, he would gently head me in the right direction. He would put the right people into my life to love and inspire me. He would not disown me as my son did when I believed that God was speaking through a Samual-the-Lamanite-type outsider who testified with as much fervor as any Mormon member of the Church that the Sealed Portion was upon the earth. He would not inspire my ex-wife to filed divorce papers because I investigated the Sealed Portion, studied it out, then asked God if it was right, and believed I had received an answer that it was. He would not have inspired those high councilmen who cast lots to see who would defend me at my excommunication court, and who were instructed to advocate for me, to weaken under the Stake President’s eye and to vote against me and in favor of my excommunication, even when my Bishop testified that, as a seminary teacher, I never asked one student to believe me, or even told them about my quest and findings.

Yes, I spoke with God several times in my life, and this is where I am now, unable to do it again in any genuine way without help from him or some loving soul that could teach me how.

My Father in Heaven would not tell me that I am foolish for seeking to find religion based on historical or archeological evidence, at least in part. (Quasi gave me some hope in this direction, and God would not take my hope away.) Yes, perhaps there “is no reason to believe in ANY religion on that basis,” for NONE of them stack up against the evidence.

God would not call my search to find out whether Joseph Smith fabricated the Book of Mormon or had assistance from others as “a ridiculous proposition.”

I have spoken to God many times in the past and this is where I am now in my life. I don’t criticize you, Tobin, in how you have counseled me as an investigator of Mormonism. But I cannot abandon my search at this time.

I am in the Nursery according to my status in the forum. If I am treated as one with childlike propensities, that might lead me somewhere out of the hole I am in. That is, if someone will extend that kind of love and care towards me.
Of course you are welcome to do anything you want (as if I could stop you), no matter how useless and ineffectual it may be. I was simply pointing out that Mormonism is based on the proposition that one must seek and speak with God to determine whether or not it is true. If you are incapable of doing that, I'm just advising you to do other more productive things with your life. After all, if you are going to investigate Mormonism based on a narrow set of criteria that is unlikely to yield any answer other than it a fraud and an obvious one at that, then I'd just skip to the conclusion and cease my efforts there. Instead I'd encourage you to serve others, be kind to your family and others that you meet, and live a useful and fulfilling life doing good.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
_vessr
_Emeritus
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 9:47 am

Re: Dan Vogel versus the late Ted Chandler

Post by _vessr »

Dear Tobin,

I appreciate that you are making me “welcome to do anything” I “want.” I also apreciate your assumtion that you couldn’t stop me “no matter how useless and ineffectual” my search for truth may be.

You claim that “Mormonism is based on the proposition that one must seek and speak with God to determine whether or not it is true.” If I am “incapable of doing that” you’re advising me “to do other more productive things with your life.”

But Tobin, my brother, there is nothing more important in this life than seeking to know what we are to do to be happy—in this life and in the next, if there is one. At least that’s how I see it. And yet you suggest I abandon my investigation of Mormons based on my “narrow set of criteria that is unlikely to yield any answer other than it a fraud . …”

You suggest that I skip my search and jump to the conclusion that there is no God or that Mormonism if false. You suggest I “cease my efforts there” and instead “serve others, be kind to [my] family and others that [I] meet, and live a useful and fulfilling life doing good.”

I certainly will serve others and be kind to my family and others. I certainly will strive to live a useful and fulfilling life. But I won’t give up my search simply because you recommend it. God would not want that of me. I’m surprised you would, as one who claims to be representing Him.

Please let me waste away my life as I feel is best for me. No need to save me from wasting my time. It is no waste for me.
_Tobin
_Emeritus
Posts: 8417
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:01 pm

Re: Dan Vogel versus the late Ted Chandler

Post by _Tobin »

vessr wrote:Dear Tobin,

I appreciate that you are making me “welcome to do anything” I “want.” I also apreciate your assumtion that you couldn’t stop me “no matter how useless and ineffectual” my search for truth may be.

You claim that “Mormonism is based on the proposition that one must seek and speak with God to determine whether or not it is true.” If I am “incapable of doing that” you’re advising me “to do other more productive things with your life.”

But Tobin, my brother, there is nothing more important in this life than seeking to know what we are to do to be happy—in this life and in the next, if there is one. At least that’s how I see it. And yet you suggest I abandon my investigation of Mormons based on my “narrow set of criteria that is unlikely to yield any answer other than it a fraud . …”

You suggest that I skip my search and jump to the conclusion that there is no God or that Mormonism if false. You suggest I “cease my efforts there” and instead “serve others, be kind to [my] family and others that [I] meet, and live a useful and fulfilling life doing good.”

I certainly will serve others and be kind to my family and others. I certainly will strive to live a useful and fulfilling life. But I won’t give up my search simply because you recommend it. God would not want that of me. I’m surprised you would, as one who claims to be representing Him.

Please let me waste away my life as I feel is best for me. No need to save me from wasting my time. It is no waste for me.


As I've said, it is your life. But if someone told me they wanted to improve transit to China by digging a hole in the ground with a spade and shovel, I'd duly tell them that wasn't likely to succeed and advise them to do something else. But you are welcome to continue digging all you want, even though it is a complete waste of time. What you are saying is equivalent - you are unprepared, incapable, or unwilling to approach God and speak with him to learn from him (as we ask all investigators of Mormonism to do), so go do something else. What I proposed is much more likely to succeed in your search for God than the fruitless effort you are attempting. By serving others, you are serving God and are open to opportunities to learn about him. I wouldn't have recommended it otherwise.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
_Bret Ripley
_Emeritus
Posts: 1542
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:53 am

Re: Dan Vogel versus the late Ted Chandler

Post by _Bret Ripley »

Tobin wrote:...
Tobin: out of respect to vessr's wishes, I am bowing out of this derail. Be well.
_vessr
_Emeritus
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 9:47 am

Re: Dan Vogel versus the late Ted Chandler

Post by _vessr »

Bret Ripley wrote:
Tobin wrote:...
Tobin: out of respect to vessr's wishes, I am bowing out of this derail. Be well.


I give up too, Tobin. You are repeating yourself. You are belittling my efforts to dig for truth, calling it "a complete waste of time" You say I am "unprepared, incapable, or unwilling to approach God." That is not true. In my private moments I do reach out to him. I ask him if he is really there. He does not answer me. He is a silent father doing nothing for his wayward child, as far as I can see with my limited spiritual eyesight.

In the words of the Beatles, Tobin, "let it be, let it be, let it be." Let me keep digging and please refrain from telling me again.
_Tobin
_Emeritus
Posts: 8417
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:01 pm

Re: Dan Vogel versus the late Ted Chandler

Post by _Tobin »

vessr wrote:I give up too, Tobin. You are repeating yourself. You are belittling my efforts to dig for truth, calling it "a complete waste of time" You say I am "unprepared, incapable, or unwilling to approach God." That is not true. In my private moments I do reach out to him. I ask him if he is really there. He does not answer me. He is a silent father doing nothing for his wayward child, as far as I can see with my limited spiritual eyesight.

In the words of the Beatles, Tobin, "let it be, let it be, let it be." Let me keep digging and please refrain from telling me again.

It is not belittling to point out your present efforts seem like a complete waste of time. And if you are truly seeking God, then I fail to see how anything I've recommended to you is not helpful in the least.

Now, as far as your assertion that God hasn't answered you YET, well - that seems unlikely from your prior statements in which you've said God has answered you, you just can't remember it because of your condition. And if God was able to answer you once, he surely can do so again. But, when God chooses to do so. After all, who are you to make demands of God and order that he answer you at your whim and pleasure?!? Be humble and seek the Lord as you did before and do as he asks - being kind, serving others, and doing good and he will answer you yet again.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
_Samantabhadra
_Emeritus
Posts: 348
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:53 pm

Re: Dan Vogel versus the late Ted Chandler

Post by _Samantabhadra »

vessr, I can't comment on the Vogel/Chandler debate, although it seems to me that if you're at the point where you recognize that "reasonable minds" can arrive at the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is fraudulent, irrespective of the process of its manufacture by Joseph Smith, that the real issue is whether or not Mormonism as such is a good way for you to seek God.

In other words, I would urge you to consider--contra Tobin--that the fact that Mormonism is fraudulent, and there is no more evidence for the truth of the Book of Mormon than there was for your belief in the Sealed Portion, has nothing to do with the question of whether or not God exists. The falsity of Mormonism does not entail the non-existence of God.

On that note, have you ever heard of "apophatic theology" or the via negativa? To make a long story short, it has long been a sign of mature engagement with the Christian path not to run from the fact that God does not make Himself directly manifest to our physical senses (nor, from a certain perspective, to our intellectual faculties). Apophatic theology proceeds from the insight that it is impossible to describe God in any positive terms: even saying that God is "good" misses the unbridgeable qualitative difference between any "good" of which the human mind can conceive, and the ultimate unthinkable goodness of God that is, properly speaking, "beyond good and evil." If you're interested I would suggest reading The Cloud of Unknowing by an anonymous medieval English mystic, or the works of Meister Eckhart. For a particularly valuable and modern take on the latter I would also recommend Jacques Derrida's "How to Avoid Speaking: Denials" in Languages of the Unsayable.
Post Reply