DCP Accuses Dan Vogel of Intending to "damage the Church"

[Doctor Scratch]

It seems that gossipmongering is in full swing with the Mopologists lately. In the midst of a series of comments at "SeN," the ever-reliable Tavares Stanfield makes a useful distinction concerning Church critics:

I think a distinction should be made between those who attack the faith of the Latter-day Saints and those who disagree with some claims made by LDS tradition or doctrine. Sandra Tanner wants to destroy your faith. Dan Vogel and Brent Metcalfe have an academic interest so LDS claims, but I do not believe they have the intention to harm faith. Even though their arguments and conclusions may make a believing Latter-day Saint uncomfortable.

DCP immediately counters with this:

A friend told me of a conversation with Dan V. from many, many years ago in which, following a meal and perhaps slightly under the (postprandial) influence, Dan expressly declared it his intention to damage the Church. I have no reason to believe that my friend was lying about that, and he told me about it not long after the conversation.

Now, that may not have been Dan's actual intention at the time. Or it may be that his position has changed since then. (We've all changed over the years; some of us, I'm reliably informed, have even grown up a bit.)

Anyway, for what it's worth, that's a small data point.

Wow, a "small data point"? Or malicious gossip? I think most people's view of Vogel is precisely what Tavares stated: i.e., that he is first and foremost a scholar, and yet here is DCP, claiming that Vogel *drunkenly* admitted to being a hardcore anti-Mormon! I would imagine that this is all tied to the recent JSPP volume in which Brian Hauglid, whom the Mopologists also hate, leaned heavily on some of Vogel's scholarship for their Book of Abraham volume. But this strikes me as quite a dirty move from Dan Peterson, and that is really saying something.

[drumdude]

Looks like Dan Vogel has a malicious stalker who is defaming, slandering, and libeling him.

I suggest he start a patheos blog to ease the pain and make some money off it.

[Rivendale]

It seems that gossipmongering is in full swing with the Mopologists lately. In the midst of a series of comments at "SeN," the ever-reliable Tavares Stanfield makes a useful distinction concerning Church critics:

I think a distinction should be made between those who attack the faith of the Latter-day Saints and those who disagree with some claims made by LDS tradition or doctrine. Sandra Tanner wants to destroy your faith. Dan Vogel and Brent Metcalfe have an academic interest so LDS claims, but I do not believe they have the intention to harm faith. Even though their arguments and conclusions may make a believing Latter-day Saint uncomfortable.

DCP immediately counters with this:

A friend told me of a conversation with Dan V. from many, many years ago in which, following a meal and perhaps slightly under the (postprandial) influence, Dan expressly declared it his intention to damage the Church. I have no reason to believe that my friend was lying about that, and he told me about it not long after the conversation.

Now, that may not have been Dan's actual intention at the time. Or it may be that his position has changed since then. (We've all changed over the years; some of us, I'm reliably informed, have even grown up a bit.)

Anyway, for what it's worth, that's a small data point.

Wow, a "small data point"? Or malicious gossip? I think most people's view of Vogel is precisely what Tavares stated: i.e., that he is first and foremost a scholar, and yet here is DCP, claiming that Vogel *drunkenly* admitted to being a hardcore anti-Mormon! I would imagine that this is all tied to the recent JSPP volume in which Brian Hauglid, whom the Mopologists also hate, leaned heavily on some of Vogel's scholarship for their Book of Abraham volume. But this strikes me as quite a dirty move from Dan Peterson, and that is really saying something.

Simon Southerton recently made a Facebook post claiming that Dan admits to trying to portray Joseph Smith in the best possible light and that in itself taints his historical writings.

[Dr Moore]

Is there a single example of a researcher or academic who is (a) respected by Mopologists as a genuinely unbiased, non-threatening researcher and (b) publishes interpretations or analysis related to LDS history that explicitly run counter to faith-promoting narratives?

One? Anywhere?

[Gadianton]

Is there a single example of a researcher or academic who is (a) respected by Mopologists as a genuinely unbiased, non-threatening researcher and (b) publishes interpretations or analysis related to LDS history that explicitly run counter to faith-promoting narratives?

One? Anywhere?

they would turn that around and say critics won't acknowledge a genuinely unbiased apologist. there may be some truth to that, but the apologists forget that nearly all critics had spent their lives as devout and often overly devout members. In other words, the bias was always in the direction of the Church being true. Perhaps "overcorrection" fits for some critics, but it's not the same as the bias of a born-in-the-covenant member who has never wavered. If the apologists have an example of a never-mo critic who got baptized and became an apologist, they might have something in terms of unbiased.

as for the main post, lol, okay. depending on what 'damaging the church' means, who would even care.

[drumdude]

Is there a single example of a researcher or academic who is (a) respected by Mopologists as a genuinely unbiased, non-threatening researcher and (b) publishes interpretations or analysis related to LDS history that explicitly run counter to faith-promoting narratives?

One? Anywhere?

If you're not Mormon, you're anti-Mormon.

[huckelberry]

Is there a single example of a researcher or academic who is (a) respected by Mopologists as a genuinely unbiased, non-threatening researcher and (b) publishes interpretations or analysis related to LDS history that explicitly run counter to faith-promoting narratives?

One? Anywhere?

If you're not Mormon, you're anti-Mormon.

Well that avoids some labor making distinctions, tiring delicate divisions, and then eye straining hair splitting.
I like Sandra Tanner.

[Kishkumen]

What makes me sick is the use of one alleged comment to smear a person who has a long record of being a decent and accommodating person to all. Dan Vogel is a real mensch. Attacking him and insinuating that he is some kind of evil actor are low enterprises, unworthy of anyone who would claim to hold the priesthood of God.

[Philo Sofee]

What makes me sick is the use of one alleged comment to smear a person who has a long record of being a decent and accommodating person to all. Dan Vogel is a real mensch. Attacking him and insinuating that he is some kind of evil actor are low enterprises, unworthy of anyone who would claim to hold the priesthood of God.

Agreed. He treated Jeremy Runnells and the CES Letter with the same kind of nonchalant, gossipy arrogance and condescension. That really is the essence of Mopologetics, so it is no longer a surprise. Now had Vogel been a scholar of any other religion, Peterson would have been praising his skills to the high heavens even if he didn't become Mormon, like happened with Albright, or Neusner, etc. My suspicion is Vogel's startling competence in historical things Mormonism that spooks the Mopes, so for whatever short coming, their mentality, they short circuit into attack model automatically. Perhaps it's in honor of the dishonest war mongering idiot spiritual general Boyd K. Packer they love to imagine they are still pleasing even though the old goat is farting dust now, who knows...

[Kishkumen]

Agreed. He treated Jeremy Runnells and the CES Letter with the same kind of nonchalant, gossipy arrogance and condescension. That really is the essence of Mopologetics, so it is no longer a surprise. Now had Vogel been a scholar of any other religion, Peterson would have been praising his skills to the high heavens even if he didn't become Mormon, like happened with Albright, or Neusner, etc. My suspicion is Vogel's startling competence in historical things Mormonism that spooks the Mopes, so for whatever short coming, their mentality, they short circuit into attack model automatically. Perhaps it's in honor of the dishonest war mongering idiot spiritual general Boyd K. Packer they love to imagine they are still pleasing even though the old goat is farting dust now, who knows...

I am not sure, though, that Jeremy Runnells is the best comparandum. I am sympathetic to Jeremy, but he is not the scholar Dan is, and he has not exercised the kind of care that Dan has. Dan is a rare gem in Mormon Studies, and Mormon Studies is what he is up to. He is very honest and open about his approach, but he also goes out of his way not to attack or run down others.