Finally, at 3:57:5, you state: “The rest of his counterclaims and criticisms, not surprisingly, all fall into one or more of the same categories that have heretofore betrayed Mr. Vogel as less of a serious historian and more of a sole-authorship apologist.” Of course, you are a Spalding apologist, and responding to a Spalding apologist requires a lot of argumentation and will consequently make me appear to defend Joseph Smith as the sole author of the Book of Mormon. Does that sound ironic? I’m defending Joseph Smith. It’s just as ironic as when some former Mormons accused me of being a Joseph Smith apologist because I described some of his motivations as pious. Nevertheless, we should acknowledge that your attempt to label me is an ad hominem, but not a very wise one since the Spalding theory is the fringe position. Your attack is also a bit distorted since my critique of your book doesn’t define my whole career, even if you think I went too far with my treatment of autobiographical elements in the Book of Mormon in my first biography of Joseph Smith.
I’m sorry my review was critical, but I think you totally blew it and I wanted to warn readers and potential readers that despite appearances, it is amateurish and replete with undocumented misinformation. Your response here has been to pile on more misinformation in what amounts to a smokescreen and attack me.
“1) he mischaracterizes more of my arguments.”
While anyone can misunderstand arguments, you have shown here a propensity to mischaracterize my arguments and to straw man them.
“2) he hides crucial information.”
Crucial information like the Celes MS and Thomas Boys’ 1859 statement? I guess it depends on what you think is crucial. Why should I mention Boys in my review of your book? Boys’ opinion is not evidence. All he did was to make the same connection to Vayer’s Mormon that you did. It doesn’t make it truer. As far as I’m concerned the Celes MS isn’t relevant. I was reviewing what you said in your book, not what you recommended on a podcast that I read.
So, I don’t think I have hidden any information to take an unfair advantage. I just don’t think in terms of winning and losing. I’m just trying to get at the truth of the matter. On the other hand, you have withheld information about the authorship and probable date of the Celes MS from your listeners. I won’t stoop so low as the recommend they unsubscribe you. I could list a lot of things you withheld—like Kircher’s balls being filled with mineral oil, having only one pointer, and not working like a compass, or that the Cleveland Plain Dealer pertaining to Ethan Smith, not John Smith, or that LDS scholars responded to Jokers et al.—but I won’t bother.
“3) he commits factual errors that should have been caught through his own fact checking.”
You mean the one dealing with hand warmers, which is what is commonly believed. To me, this is a small matter and doesn’t detract from the fact that there were brass balls in Joseph Smith environment from which to draw inspiration for his invention of the Liahona. On the other hand, I can’t even count the number of factual errors you have made. And your errors included early Mormon history and the Book of Mormon, something you should know about at the very least.
“4) he continues to apply the unprofessional rhetoric that, most unfortunately, may (in the end) seal his testimony on the wrong side of history—unless he repents.”
Stop your whining, Lars. My rhetoric might be direct, but not unprofessional. I have not engaged in ad hominem or attacked you personally. Nor have I said anything that is worse than what you have said here. I’m just more used to it because I’ve been around a long time. Believe me, you don’t know what a blunt review is until you have been reviewed by FARMS. Brace yourself.
