i am not a mormon ( i allways start my comments like that), but i allways find these videos so interesting, see how a religion develops almost in real time. Also it makes me travel to a time and place completely foreign to us right now, but i can identify with the faith related crisis for sure
At 35:00 mark John and Dan start talking about how Joe could have come up with this in his head and remember it all. Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote a novel 5x the length of BoM from memory only! The Gulag Archipelago details the harrowing reality of USSR during/after WWII. Solzhenitsyn wasn't allowed paper in the Gulag so remembered the ENTIRE thing in his head for years. For years he repeated the details of events in his head so he could hang onto them. I don't doubt that Joe could have made it up as he went, influenced by other books like the Bible and View of the Hebrews
Alexander Solzhenitsyn was an impressive man. VERY fascinating that a man can remember that much but also take into account it IS MUCH MUCH EASIER to remember tramatic experiences than a fictional tale. this is a HUGE DIFFERENCE.
At 38:05, when you are talking about how Joseph Smith was a lot "smarter" than given credit, I I remembered that B.H. Roberts, a faithful Mormon apostle and historian, authored a book titled, "Studies of the Book of Mormon", wherein he stated that Joseph Smith was "brilliant" and had a "creative imagination" that would have enabled him to write the Book of Mormon. Smith was NOT the ignorant, uneducated country bumpkin that the Mormon church likes to portray. His father, brother, and even wife Emma were schoolteachers, and education was important in the Smith household. It was the deceitfulness of the Mormon church's portrayal of Smith, along with the deception regarding the rock in the hat method of dictating the BoM, covering up Smith's deceiving his wife and other women, that showed me a pattern of deceit that caused my loss of trust and confidence in that man and that organization. I am happy to be out of it.
Ha! I just finished reading Studies of … by B,H. Roberts. Excellent book, nightly recommend that be your next book y’all. Now I’m half way through “No Man…”. Really leaves me with questions. Main question ; How can this tell all have been around since 1946!! I’ve been a member for 65 years and never knew about this book. I feel more and more angry, resentful and cheated by this Church. Thank goodness for Dan Vogel and the internet!❤️
I have written novels. On good days I've written sixty typed pages a day. I can't imagine why people think this is so impossible. The editing is the difficult part and apparently the editing of Smith's book took a great effort after its first printings.
>>apparently the editing of Smith's book took a great effort Why don't you look into the details of the edits rather than speculating. The edits are documented in detail. They are almost all grammar changes which you may find interesting ruclips.net/video/oHJzY_9RZ4E/видео.html
How many times as a missionary did I recite the could a man have written this book? nonsense , I appreciate Dan Vogel’s treatment of the facts think it was Hugh Nibley who came up with the script .
How can we follow Dan Vogel, and what's the best way to support him? While Mr.Vogel operates a youtube channel, it looks like he hasn't posted anything new in years. He doesn't seem to have a social media presence or a web site. I can't get enough of Vogel's work. Used copies of his Joseph Smith biography are selling for hundreds of dollars. I got to read it only because Signature Press just published an ebook version. Where is Dan Vogel? How can we keep up with him and his work? Get this man a patreon account!
@@mormonstories hey, thank you for answering, I appreciate it. I loved these interviews. I'll be waiting for Dan's next appearance on Mormon Stories. Maybe he'll be promoting a new book...
This is fascinating, to say the least. I've been researching for months trying to get to the bottom of the real story and just keep hearing so much of the same apologist narrative. Finally things are starting to add up and make sense. Thanks again!
Remember, all cults have a persecution complex. So if you objectively disagree with their understanding of something then you are an attacker and an enemy and they are martyrs if necessary.
Vogel's knowledge is amazing, but I have to take issue with his dismissal of the idea that Rigdon (and Spalding) were sources of the Book by declaring such influences as "unnecessary" theories. The case for Rigdon stealing Manuscript Found and it being a principal source of portions of the text is very strong. The assertion that Joseph Smith "could have" written the BOM without Rigdon and Spalding is beside the point. Certainly the bulk was likely Smith making junk up. But that glosses over evidence that Rigdon and Spalding were in fact very likely important sources of material for the Book.
Try to remember John, half or more of BOM was Isaiah, View of Hebrews and John. Doesn’t take a lot of imagination to fill in the gaps if you are a literal genius with an idactic memory.
Why do so many mormons/ex-mormons use the term about sausage and how the sausage was made? 😅 lived in florida or east coast most my life and haven't met many but last week or so have had heard the metaphor from multiple different people in multiple different situations. Any help?
Great interview: Although The B of M is exceptional, complex, and a good read, historically, the First page has always presented a big problem for me. The author begins at the time of Zedekiah and claims Lehi, Nephi, and family knew all the happenings, having lived there their whole lives. Yet, Nebuchadnezzar took all Jerusalem captive, taking all the riches from the Temple, palaces, and city. He took all the population captive including merchants, craftsmen, prophets, priests, men, women, children, the Temple scribes with their records, and even the King. He took them to Babylon. Thereafter, he placed 21 year old Zedekiah as his puppet King, He also allowed Jeremiah to stay. Lehi, Nephi, and his family seem to be unaware and oblivious to one of the greatest calamities in Jewish history and don’t even know Zedekiah. Of course these histories would be written later by the scribes in Babylon. History is always written after the events (sometimes years), not before. Maybe this is why Lehi and Nephi missed the Great Babylonian Captivity.
Joe Smith was a genius of sorts. But even he couldn't get the complexities of Judeo-Christian BS to jibe with his ret-con "scriptures." You can't do it. It's utter chaos.
I'm not Mormon but honestly as someone who does NOT believe in the BOM or deny it this man DAN VOGEL makes me believe it. This is just about the weakest response I've ever heard.
"Adam and Eve." "Noah's flood." "Tower of Babel." If I don't believe any of these obvious myths, how can I believe in Mormonism? Why do I have to go into any additional intricacies of Mormon doctrine?? I'm done.
It's hard to totally buy Dan's theory as a way to totally explain everything. It's one thing for Joseph to dictate everything off the top of his head, it's another entirely for him to not only dictate verbatim Bible passages but then too alter them in a mostly coherent way, on-the-fly.
Please provide a link to purchase this book. The narrative that is all Dan’s “theories” are disturbing. I want to read the book and fact check every source. I just love how Dan painted JS as this great story teller and gold digger while he is making money off of JS and mormonism and making a name for himself with his fantastic stories of JS life
There seems to be this crazy idea that people who research and write about the topic of Mormon history--from a non-believing perspective--do so because it pays so well. Now, being a BYU professor is a job that will provide a decent living. (And it should.) But historians like Mr. Vogel scarcely hit the best-seller list with books delving more deeply into a specific historical niche than the vast majority of history readers will ever be interested in. (And, for the record, Mr. Vogel keeps food on the table with a day job.) His "theories" do merit challenge. (All historical theories do.) His facts, on the other hand, might well prove the source of your real discomfort. (Are you really suggesting that Joseph Smith wasn't a great storyteller and money digger?)
He’s a historian. That’s what they do. Being accurate is the goal. He’s actually pretty chill compared to other critics. He never attacks the church. Still fact checking him is a good idea, he could be flat out wrong about certain things. But personally I don’t think he has nefarious intentions.
hmmm, Dan's whole premise is that Joseph was basically making up and speaking the words of the book of Mormon as he goes? Not sure about that. Any Professional Writer would say that would be next to impossible. Way to many Names, Dates, Places and such to keep strait.
Vogel has proven that he himself is a remarkable story teller, as he fills in the "details" of his naturalistic narrative of the production of the Book of Mormon. He abandons his role as a scholar and, weaving fiction with a few facts, becomes the author of a novel. He is known for his scholarship, his imagination often trumps his ability as a scholar.
@@corbinmcmillen1985 Of course, but for an award winning SCHOLAR, , it should be based on documented facts not on fantasy and his imagination. You don't change details which are fundamental to the narrative to suit your agenda, and ignore first hand account for pure fiction based on his imagination, unsupported by any documentation. The eight witness account has specific details which are ignored, which are fundamental to their testimony == hefting the plates, viewing the engravings, etc.
@@danvogel6802 Let's keep it basic. What is your source for the details of the narrative of the eight witnesses viewing of the plates --- handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, we have seen and hefted, as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands. Dan, don't waste my time because you already answered my question years ago -- you sourced it with your own imagination and fantasy. .
@@cdowis Charles, if you had watched my video on the eight witnesses or my interview with John, you should know the sources I used. If you haven’t watched, why should I bother engaging with you? Nevertheless, I gave two main sources in my video on the witnesses, one by John Whitmer via Theodore Turley and the other by Martin Harris via Stephen Burnett. If you had watched the video, you would know quoting the printed Testimony is not reliable and begs the question of how they saw the plates. Now, if you are serious about disputing my handling of the eight witnesses, you need to study more.
i am not a mormon ( i allways start my comments like that), but i allways find these videos so interesting, see how a religion develops almost in real time. Also it makes me travel to a time and place completely foreign to us right now, but i can identify with the faith related crisis for sure
Wow
Your work is "Brilliant" Dan
Thank you
At 35:00 mark John and Dan start talking about how Joe could have come up with this in his head and remember it all.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote a novel 5x the length of BoM from memory only!
The Gulag Archipelago details the harrowing reality of USSR during/after WWII.
Solzhenitsyn wasn't allowed paper in the Gulag so remembered the ENTIRE thing in his head for years. For years he repeated the details of events in his head so he could hang onto them.
I don't doubt that Joe could have made it up as he went, influenced by other books like the Bible and View of the Hebrews
Alexander Solzhenitsyn was an impressive man. VERY fascinating that a man can remember that much but also take into account it IS MUCH MUCH EASIER to remember tramatic experiences than a fictional tale.
this is a HUGE DIFFERENCE.
At 38:05, when you are talking about how Joseph Smith was a lot "smarter" than given credit, I I remembered that B.H. Roberts, a faithful Mormon apostle and historian, authored a book titled, "Studies of the Book of Mormon", wherein he stated that Joseph Smith was "brilliant" and had a "creative imagination" that would have enabled him to write the Book of Mormon. Smith was NOT the ignorant, uneducated country bumpkin that the Mormon church likes to portray. His father, brother, and even wife Emma were schoolteachers, and education was important in the Smith household. It was the deceitfulness of the Mormon church's portrayal of Smith, along with the deception regarding the rock in the hat method of dictating the BoM, covering up Smith's deceiving his wife and other women, that showed me a pattern of deceit that caused my loss of trust and confidence in that man and that organization. I am happy to be out of it.
Galatians 1:8-9
Ha! I just finished reading Studies of … by B,H. Roberts. Excellent book, nightly recommend that be your next book y’all.
Now I’m half way through “No Man…”. Really leaves me with questions. Main question ; How can this tell all have been around since 1946!! I’ve been a member for 65 years and never knew about this book. I feel more and more angry, resentful and cheated by this Church.
Thank goodness for Dan Vogel and the internet!❤️
Brother Hiram attended Dartmouth for 3+ years.
And yes, I heartily recommend Studies… Excellent.
I have written novels. On good days I've written sixty typed pages a day. I can't imagine why people think this is so impossible. The editing is the difficult part and apparently the editing of Smith's book took a great effort after its first printings.
You could give a good talk on yt and sunstone
Did you hand write the pages first?
Cynthia Marquez no but I had the complete story in my head.
@@litebkt I believe Joseph had been thinking about the story for years before he decided to look in any hats
>>apparently the editing of Smith's book took a great effort
Why don't you look into the details of the edits rather than speculating. The edits are documented in detail. They are almost all grammar changes which you may find interesting
ruclips.net/video/oHJzY_9RZ4E/видео.html
I feel enriched by hearing the story of creation of the Book of Mormon.
How many times as a missionary did I recite the could a man have written this book? nonsense , I appreciate Dan Vogel’s treatment of the facts think it was Hugh Nibley who came up with the script .
How can we follow Dan Vogel, and what's the best way to support him? While Mr.Vogel operates a youtube channel, it looks like he hasn't posted anything new in years. He doesn't seem to have a social media presence or a web site.
I can't get enough of Vogel's work. Used copies of his Joseph Smith biography are selling for hundreds of dollars. I got to read it only because Signature Press just published an ebook version.
Where is Dan Vogel? How can we keep up with him and his work? Get this man a patreon account!
Dan is finishing a new book on Joseph Smith.
@@mormonstories hey, thank you for answering, I appreciate it. I loved these interviews.
I'll be waiting for Dan's next appearance on Mormon Stories. Maybe he'll be promoting a new book...
I’m sticking with the Alexander Soltzenetyzken theory..,who wouldn’t?
This is fascinating, to say the least. I've been researching for months trying to get to the bottom of the real story and just keep hearing so much of the same apologist narrative. Finally things are starting to add up and make sense. Thanks again!
Remember, all cults have a persecution complex. So if you objectively disagree with their understanding of something then you are an attacker and an enemy and they are martyrs if necessary.
Vogel's knowledge is amazing, but I have to take issue with his dismissal of the idea that Rigdon (and Spalding) were sources of the Book by declaring such influences as "unnecessary" theories. The case for Rigdon stealing Manuscript Found and it being a principal source of portions of the text is very strong. The assertion that Joseph Smith "could have" written the BOM without Rigdon and Spalding is beside the point. Certainly the bulk was likely Smith making junk up. But that glosses over evidence that Rigdon and Spalding were in fact very likely important sources of material for the Book.
The spaulding theory is full of holes, is not working...
Try to remember John, half or more of BOM was Isaiah, View of Hebrews and John. Doesn’t take a lot of imagination to fill in the gaps if you are a literal genius with an idactic memory.
And a lot of things are repeated at least three times in the BOM. 🤷♀️🤔
Why do so many mormons/ex-mormons use the term about sausage and how the sausage was made? 😅 lived in florida or east coast most my life and haven't met many but last week or so have had heard the metaphor from multiple different people in multiple different situations. Any help?
Great interview: Although The B of M is exceptional, complex, and a good read, historically, the First page has always presented a big problem for me.
The author begins at the time of Zedekiah and claims Lehi, Nephi, and family knew all the happenings, having lived there their whole lives.
Yet, Nebuchadnezzar took all Jerusalem captive, taking all the riches from the Temple, palaces, and city. He took all the population captive including merchants, craftsmen, prophets, priests, men, women, children, the Temple scribes with their records, and even the King. He took them to Babylon. Thereafter, he placed 21 year old Zedekiah as his puppet King, He also allowed Jeremiah to stay.
Lehi, Nephi, and his family seem to be unaware and oblivious to one of the greatest calamities in Jewish history and don’t even know Zedekiah. Of course these histories would be written later by the scribes in Babylon. History is always written after the events (sometimes years), not before. Maybe this is why Lehi and Nephi missed the Great Babylonian Captivity.
Joe Smith was a genius of sorts. But even he couldn't get the complexities of Judeo-Christian BS to jibe with his ret-con "scriptures." You can't do it. It's utter chaos.
I've never heard this before, thank you for posting and sharing
The apocrypha was a part of the KJV for 274 years until being removed in 1885 A.D.
Best yet
I would read this website:
wordtree.org/thelatewar/
Seems like pre-written work to me. So I would have to disagree with Dan here.
I'm not Mormon but honestly as someone who does NOT believe in the BOM or deny it this man DAN VOGEL makes me believe it. This is just about the weakest response I've ever heard.
25.10 Smith buries his face in the hat to focus on the story he was creating. that was how he concentrated on the subject.
min 3 JS never described his personal translation process.
His scribes did. They’re Fairly consistent describing the process
"Adam and Eve." "Noah's flood." "Tower of Babel." If I don't believe any of these obvious myths, how can I believe in Mormonism? Why do I have to go into any additional intricacies of Mormon doctrine?? I'm done.
the purpose of this talk i believe is simply to understand how was that book created
Dan Vogel: "All the computer can do is count. It cannot do much more than that." 2023-2024: this didn't age well. 😂 #GenAI
It's hard to totally buy Dan's theory as a way to totally explain everything. It's one thing for Joseph to dictate everything off the top of his head, it's another entirely for him to not only dictate verbatim Bible passages but then too alter them in a mostly coherent way, on-the-fly.
Please provide a link to purchase this book. The narrative that is all Dan’s “theories” are disturbing. I want to read the book and fact check every source. I just love how Dan painted JS as this great story teller and gold digger while he is making money off of JS and mormonism and making a name for himself with his fantastic stories of JS life
There seems to be this crazy idea that people who research and write about the topic of Mormon history--from a non-believing perspective--do so because it pays so well. Now, being a BYU professor is a job that will provide a decent living. (And it should.) But historians like Mr. Vogel scarcely hit the best-seller list with books delving more deeply into a specific historical niche than the vast majority of history readers will ever be interested in. (And, for the record, Mr. Vogel keeps food on the table with a day job.) His "theories" do merit challenge. (All historical theories do.) His facts, on the other hand, might well prove the source of your real discomfort. (Are you really suggesting that Joseph Smith wasn't a great storyteller and money digger?)
He’s a historian. That’s what they do. Being accurate is the goal. He’s actually pretty chill compared to other critics. He never attacks the church. Still fact checking him is a good idea, he could be flat out wrong about certain things. But personally I don’t think he has nefarious intentions.
hmmm, Dan's whole premise is that Joseph was basically making up and speaking the words of the book of Mormon as he goes? Not sure about that. Any Professional Writer would say that would be next to impossible. Way to many Names, Dates, Places and such to keep strait.
Vogel has proven that he himself is a remarkable story teller, as he fills in the "details" of his naturalistic narrative of the production of the Book of Mormon. He abandons his role as a scholar and, weaving fiction with a few facts, becomes the author of a novel.
He is known for his scholarship, his imagination often trumps his ability as a scholar.
well, if you were writing books on how it all went down, how would you go about that?
don't you have to tell a story?
@@corbinmcmillen1985
Of course, but for an award winning SCHOLAR, , it should be based on documented facts not on fantasy and his imagination. You don't change details which are fundamental to the narrative to suit your agenda, and ignore first hand account for pure fiction based on his imagination, unsupported by any documentation.
The eight witness account has specific details which are ignored, which are fundamental to their testimony == hefting the plates, viewing the engravings, etc.
@@cdowis I have denied neither. Who is making up things now?
@@danvogel6802
Let's keep it basic. What is your source for the details of the narrative of the eight witnesses viewing of the plates ---
handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, we have seen and hefted, as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands.
Dan, don't waste my time because you already answered my question years ago -- you sourced it with your own imagination and fantasy.
.
@@cdowis Charles, if you had watched my video on the eight witnesses or my interview with John, you should know the sources I used. If you haven’t watched, why should I bother engaging with you? Nevertheless, I gave two main sources in my video on the witnesses, one by John Whitmer via Theodore Turley and the other by Martin Harris via Stephen Burnett. If you had watched the video, you would know quoting the printed Testimony is not reliable and begs the question of how they saw the plates. Now, if you are serious about disputing my handling of the eight witnesses, you need to study more.