Posted on Leave a comment

How we got Book of Abraham (part 7 of 9)

When a travelling Egyptian exhibit passed through Kirtland, Ohio in the 1830s, Joseph Smith encouraged followers to purchase some mummies and Egyptian scrolls. Did these contain the Book of Abraham? Historian Dan Vogel tells us more about these scrolls.

Dan:   So Michael Chandler came into Kirtland, Ohio in late June 1835 or probably July, but about the 3rd of July, I think it is, Joseph Smith sees them. You have to pay to see them, so people are paying to see the mummies. Joseph Smith is interested in the papyri, but not the mummies. But Chandler doesn’t want to sell them separately, because he wants to sell everything and go home, probably. Joseph Smith arranges with–there’s like three parties that get together, one of them is him. But he has a problem paying, of course. $2400 is quite a lot to purchase all of those. He purchases them, and shortly thereafter, announces that there’s two scrolls. One scroll he identifies with the record of ancient Joseph, and another one with Abraham. The earliest account we have of that is a 19th of July. William W. Phelps, writes a letter to his wife, because he was in Missouri, and he came to Kirtland and he’s helping Oliver Cowdery with the printing. He’s also arranging the 1835 Doctrine & Covenants, and he’s Joseph Smith’s scribe, and he works in Joseph Smith’s office. He and his son are staying with Joseph Smith. So he writes. His wife mentioned that no one could read these writings and that Joseph Smith has identified them as the writings of Abraham and ancient Joseph.

But was it the Book of Abraham?

Dan:  They were discovered in Thebes, Egypt.  They found a huge catacomb of mummies and mummies usually have three kinds of records, actually.  They could have a Book of Breathings or a breathing permit, on their chest, usually in their crossed arms, sitting there.  There was a Book of the Dead, or hypoocephalus, that round Facsimile II, under the head to hold the body heat. The breathing permit is to breathe in the next life. So, there were 11 mummies that made their way to America, and somehow, this Michael Chandler got a hold of them.

Check out our conversation….

Dan Vogel explains how Joseph Smith purchased scrolls and mummies in Kirtland, Ohio that later became the Book of Abraham.
Posted on Leave a comment

First Vision Conflicts (Part 6 of 9)

Joseph Smith gave multiple accounts of his First Vision experience.  Some people find the differing accounts problematic, while others don’t think they are a big issue.  We’ll talk about these First Vision conflicts with historian Dan Vogel and discuss the different perspectives.

GT:  For some people, these First Vision conflicts are a big deal and they prove Mormonism isn’t true. And for other people, it’s like, what’s the big deal? Why is this an issue? So I guess my question is, where do you fit in there? I mean, in my mind, would it be inconsistent (and I’m a believer) to say, well, maybe he had something in 1820 or 1821, maybe it was a born again experience. Maybe he didn’t tell everything in that 1832 account, and then in 1838, he’s having these persecutions. Maybe he’s misremembering some things and going to 1824. To me, it’s not it’s not a testimony killer. I’ll put it that way. So number one, where do you fit among those two groups?

Dan:  Okay, so my goal is not to kill people’s testimony. I’m just a historian. This is how to look at the documents in a historically minded way.

GT:  Okay.

Dan:  Historians look for these kinds of things to show development. Now, some of the details you can write off as memory problems. But you can’t use faulty memory like Stephen Harper does, as an apologetic, to explain away contradictions. You might use faulty memory, like there’s false memory syndrome, where people can actually create false memories, trying to remember vague memories, and it works.

Dan:  I mean, an example would be the Spalding witnesses. They have vague memories about a manuscript in the past. We know that what they remembered was wrong. Because they could only remember what they had read in the book of Mormon, and nothing else. We know that the the Book of Mormon is not about the lost 10 tribes. That was a common misconception, but these witnesses that’s gotten into their memory somehow. It’s a vague story, they vaguely remember the names. The memories become sharper, the more they talk to each other. So we know from other methods that they were wrong. Okay. But we don’t use false memory syndrome to prove that they’re wrong. We use that as an explanation of how they got it wrong. Okay.

Dan:  So you can’t come up on Joseph Smith, and say, well, there’s these contradictions, and they can all be explained away by this false memory syndrome theory, or else you can never catch anyone making things up or prevaricating, on whatever issue. They could always say, it’s memory. A lot of politicians try that. But it’s not what historians do. It’s what apologists do.

GT:  Okay.

Dan:  So I’m not trying to kill people’s testimonies. That’s not my concern. I don’t care about that question. Okay. It’s not that I don’t care about your religion or anything. I don’t care about destroying people’s faith or anything. I’m just trying to get it close to what probably really happened as I can. That doesn’t mean that some people of faith can’t hang on to that faith, but it has to maybe evolve a little bit. I’m just trying to find the facts, and what probably the best evidence, the best scenario to explain the evidence. It’s not my job to figure out how people of faith, or to what to do with this. I, I could just point out the problem, and not the answer, maybe. So I think there is a way, there is a way to hang on as long as you want for people in different ways. It’s a very personal thing.

GT:  So you wouldn’t be opposed to somebody that says, Yeah, I think Joseph conflated maybe one or two visions here, conflated 1820 with 1824, and it’s not that big of a deal. Yeah, there’s some contradictions there. But it’s, you know, it’s a faulty memory, big deal.

Dan:  Well, I think he changed it on purpose to teach a lesson. He’s more concerned–he’s a charismatic leader. He’s not a historian. He could care less about history, facts, keeping the revelations pure as they were originally given. He doesn’t care about any of that. He is trying to get things done, motivate people to do things that they wouldn’t do without this motivation.

Check out our conversation….

Do you think First Vision conflicts are a testimony killer, or are they no big deal?

DOn’t miss our other conversations with Dan!

291 – 1835 Account of First Vision

290 – Making a Case for Melchizedek Priesthood in 1831?

289 – Methodist Visions

288 – Why “Pious Fraud” Ticks off Everyone

287 – Dan Vogel Was a McConkie Mormon!

Posted on Leave a comment

Making a Case for Melchizedek Priesthood in 1831 (Part 4 of 9)

There has been a discrepancy as to when the Melchizedek Priesthood was restored.  Was it in June of 1829, 1830, or 1831?  Historian Dan weighs in on the controversy and makes a case for later than the official Church story.

GT: Okay, so it sounds to me like you’re making a pretty strong case for the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood being 1831, which really wasn’t known about until 1835. Is that what you’re saying?

Dan   Yeah, 1835.  Alma Chapter 13 talks about the high priesthood and associates the high priesthood with Melchizedek.  So in June 1831, it’s the high priesthood that is given to elders, and for time it was the elders with more authority. It wasn’t a separate office at first.  It takes several months before it becomes the high priest office, but it was elders that had the high priesthood. So, that high priesthood, of course, because Alma is going to be associated with Melchizedek, and that’s why it says for the first time.  The eldership wasn’t associated with Melchizedek. So in the church you had, for a while, elders.  Elders were the charismatic leaders of the church, and the teachers, priests and deacons. were under elders.

GT:  Yeah. So from what I understand, I spoke with Greg Prince about a year and a half ago, one of the things he said was when the church was very first organized, you had elders, priests and teachers. Those are the only three authorized.

Dan:  Right, deacon came a little later.

GT:  Deacon and Bishop came when Sidney Rigdon was baptized, and he said the Bible has Bishop and Deacon and so those were added later, both to the Aaronic priesthood, but it sounds like..

Dan:  There’s no Aaronic, yet.

GT:  So it was just the priesthood. Okay. I’m trying to remember because Quinn also delves into this and it sounded like elders were kind of like, “We’re not sure if they’re Aaronic or Melchizedek,” because it was kind of confusing.

Dan:  Elders and then the High Priests were separate.  Not until the expansion of D & C 107 were elders included in the High Priesthood and formed two layers.

Dan will also weigh in on Michael Marquardt’s claim that the Church was restored in Manchester, rather than Fayette.  Check out our conversation….

Historian Dan Vogel thinks the restoration of Melchizedek Priesthood dates to 1831.

Don’t miss our other episodes with Dan!

289 – Methodist Visions

288 – Why “Pious Fraud” Ticks off Everyone

287 – Dan Vogel Was a McConkie Mormon!