Recently,
Dan Vogel wrote the following in response to a presentation I gave on the First Vision (I have uploaded the unedited powerpoint slides on dropbox here]):
On Psalm 14: This was dictated between late July 1832 and 2
July 1833, after Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon claimed to have seen “the glory
of the Son, on the right hand of the Father” (D&C 76:20). Nothing in JS’s
revision implies his First Vision. He still had to justify Moses seeing God
(Moses 1). Some of his followers were seeing Jesus. In Dec. 1832, a revelation
promised the sanctified a view of God (D&C 88:68).
This misses
the point I was making; the language one finds from Jesus in the 1838 account
is found here, alongside verbiage found in the 1832 account (and such, in JST 14, is attributed to the Lord) showing it was created out of whole clothe in 1838. As I said, Bradley
and Walker have a forthcoming article on this and they will be going into more
detail on this, and on Moses seeing God, I will be discussing this and related issues on Stephen's channel next time I appear ("Can Man See God?" will be the title of the episode).
Also,
D&C 76:62 refutes your thesis that Modalism was early LDS Christology (I
know your ‘responses’ to these texts and find them exegetically wanting, to put
it nicely). Stephen Murphy approached you to debate me on this topic and you
pulled the “I am too busy” card. You work one day a week in a grocery store and
spend a lot of time on youtube with RFM et al. You should be willing to debate
and defend your claim, made for decades now, that the Book of Mormon and early
LDS literature (including the Lectures on Faith) is that of Modalism.
On D&C 20:5: . . . Robert, you seem to have trouble with
the word “manifestation,” but the BofM and D&C use it for non-visionary
experiences: “manifestation of the Spirit” (Alma 5:47; 7:17; D&C 5:16; 8:,
etc.).
Ah, yes; I must struggle with the word "manifestation." Insult the intelligence of your critics, Dan. Furthermore, this only
shows you were not paying attention to anything I said. I acknowledged the language
of “manifestation” can be used in such a way; notice, however, those texts
speak of “manifestation of the Spirit” (i.e., an example of a movement of the Spirit and/or demonstration of the gifts of the Spirits). As I noted, "manifest" with reference to the Father and/or the Son often means a theophany. You did not deal with those texts. Perhaps you have trouble with the word "manifestation" and paying attention to your critics?
Robert, I think you are reading too much into the text of 2
Nephi 27:24-26. Of course, this text was dictated by Joseph Smith near the end
of the project. Smith (or Nephi depending on how you view it) adapts the entire
chapter 29 of Isaiah to his situation, but its primary use pertains to the Book
of Mormon and the sealed book. There part that you interpret as a prophecy of
the First Vision creates no problem for the naturalist since chronologically
(in 2 Nephi) it comes after the book is sealed up again (v 22). It doesn’t say
when the Lord speaks the words or how (personally or through revelation), but
in context it seems to be poetic and not literal.
How so? What
can be gratuitously asserted can be gratuitously denied. This is pretty
pathetic, Dan, as well as a false dichotomy (if something uses poetical devices
it must be 100% non-literal; speaking personally and through revelation [false dichotomy], etc.) but to be expected from someone who has no
training in exegesis and comes up with all types of mental gymnastics to salvage his pet theories, whether early Mormon Modalism or, as my friend Stephen Smoot has shown, the Book of Abraham. And the claim that “In this chapter, the Lord is made to
say a lot of things that do not seem to be literal” is another stretch. At
times, 2 Nephi 27 uses hyperbolic language to describe realities. Note
the opening verses:
But, behold, in the last days, or in the days of the
Gentiles-- yea, behold all the nations of the Gentiles and also the Jews, both
those who shall come upon this land and those who shall be upon other lands,
yea, even upon all the lands of the earth, behold, they will be drunken with iniquity
and all manner of abominations.
Nephi is
talking about a literal reality (i.e., people engaged in ‘abominations’
[idolatry, etc]) even if he is waxing lyrical (“drunken with iniquity”). The
context of the pericope also suggests a literal event, not one that is merely
poetical. Notice the promise from the Lord concerning the witnesses and other events about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon:
Wherefore, when thou hast read the words which I have
commanded thee, and obtained the witnesses which I have promised unto thee,
then shalt thou seal up the book again, and hide it up unto me, that I may
preserve the words which thou hast not read, until I shall see fit in mine own
wisdom to reveal all things unto the children of men. (v. 22)
The text clearly presents the
witnesses as real, not poetical or metaphorical; the sealing up of the plates
and their being hidden up to God as a real event; the preservation being a real
event; and their being revealed in the then-future to the children of men as a
real event. This then leads into the pericope I discussed. A theophany, not a "born again experience" merely without a theophany (I try not to engage in false dichotomies) is supported by the text. Further, in, vv. 24-26, while there might be poetic language used, it discussing literal (space-time) events, such as the then-future translator reading/translating the text (v. 24); the people of the time paying lip service to the Gospel and believing in false gospels (v. 25; cf. Gal 1:6-9); and doing a "marvellous work among this people" (coming forth of the Book of Mormon; preaching of the true Gospel, etc [v. 26]).
Dan: Stephen
Murphy, as I noted, asked you to debate me on the claim you have been making
for years now that the Book of Mormon, 1832 First Vision, and even the Lectures
on Faith (Lecture #5 in particular) teaches Modalism. I will happily debate you on this topic in a
moderated debate (Stephen Murphy, who has shown himself to be fairly neutral,
would be a perfect moderator). And I am not a randomer on this topic or some “Internet
apologist” who has no training; I have the formal education in the relevant
fields (e.g., degree in theology; coursework in Christology and relevant topics; very good grasp of 19th-century religious debates [I have studied other groups from that time in-depth, such as the Christadelphians [who are Socinian in their Christology] and others with heterodox Christologies, historic and modern]). I will be having a dialogue soon with with my friend Adam Stokes (member of The Church of Jesus Christ with the Elijah Message--The Assured Way of the Lord) on this topic (see also my 3-hour discussion of the topic with Stephen).
Robert
Boylan
ScripturalMormonismATgmailDOTcom