Historian Dan Vogel is one of the premiere experts on the life of Joseph Smith. In part one of our interview, we will talk about his early life growing up in Mormonism, and I was a bit surprised to find out what a big fan of Bruce R. McConkie he was!
Dan: I really liked research and writing on early Mormon history. Ever since I was about 16 and then going on it pretty hard. Before my mission, I had read all the standard works. I had practically all the inspired version, all the changes underlined in it from reading Bruce R. McConkie’s, New Testament Commentary. When I read those three volumes, as a teenager,
GT: You were a McConkie Mormon, then?
Dan: Yes, and he came to my mission.
GT: Oh, really?
Dan: Yeah. He came to my mission.
to
GT: Where did you go?
Dan: Birmingham, England. He came to my mission. He was one of my heroes, because he was a scriptorian, and I was kind of scriptorian myself, as a kid. You know, I was really gung ho on seminary, going to seminary and raising my hand, “I know that! I know that!” So I was very annoying.
GT: This is early morning seminary?
Dan: Oh, yeah.
GT: I feel bad for these people outside of Utah that don’t have release time seminary. That was too early for me.
We will talk about his mission, and his change in beliefs. By the way, at the beginning of this episode, I introduce Dan as “Dr. Dan Vogel.” He does not hold a Ph.D., so that is not correct. Sorry about that slip up on my part.
Of course, Dan is no longer a believer. Before we turned on the camera, Dan mentioned to me that the term “pious fraud” angers critics of the church. I was surprised to hear that, but he thought the term was more middle-of-the-road. When Dan uses that term, what does that mean exactly?
Dan: I’m trying to find, as a non-believer now, the most charitable view of Joseph Smith a non-believer can have. So if you’re not going to believe Joseph Smith’s revelations, and that he had actual contact with God–this is the same question you have with any religious tradition. How do you view Joseph Smith and be a non-believer? Do you just think, “Oh, he’s just lying, and the whole thing’s a fraud, and he’s just a con man trying to get money?” [This is] what a lot of extreme critics of Joseph Smith say, “He’s trying to get power, money, sex.”
And I say, “I don’t believe that.” I believe that he used deception. If you don’t believe the Book of Mormon is actual history, but it could be inspired by Joseph Smith’s definition of what is inspired, then you have to believe that he used a little deception to sell that revelation that he had a revelation. It’s inspired, but he has to sell it to other people, to make it as hard for them to reject his revelation as possible, right?Because he learned how to do that as a treasure digger, and he’s using this skill to build confidence to make people believe his revelations. So I see Joseph Smith as an inspired pseudepigraphist, like the Assumption of Moses, the Ascension of Isaiah, the Book of Enoch, these are pseudepigraphic works, written by anonymous people trying to smuggle new doctrines into the Christian tradition, by writing in the name of the dead Prophet. These are writings that are supposedly lost and rediscovered. So I believe Joseph was doing a similar thing with the Book of Mormon. He’s writing pseudepigrapha. But he believes he’s inspired. He knows there’s no Lehi and Nephi and all that stuff. But he believes that this is the method of teaching true doctrine. Like he said, “You can get closer to God through the Book of Mormon than any other book.” He really believes that, and he’s trying to correct false doctrine. He’s combating the deists, the non-believers in his day. He’s trying to shore up the Bible, which is being criticized by deists and skeptics of his day, because of problems that they see in the Bible or incompleteness and their sectarian strife over what the Bible says. He’s trying to calm that down. He’s trying to make people believe that otherwise may not believe. But he’s also trying to garner for himself power to found a new Jerusalem government.
Just a reminder. I know that this is a controversial topic. I am trying to approach this from an academic point of view, rather than embrace polemics. Comments that are too critical of Joseph Smith, or bear testimony/quote scripture will not be approved. Please keep the emotions in check as you comment. How do you react to Dan’s position?
Wheat & Tares 
I’m sure churchistrue might agree with me that it’s no surprise that he was considering where he wound up.
Joseph Smith is a whipping boy for many members who lose or abandon their belief in Mormonism. There are many rules of behavior in this religion, and rather than admit that certain ones didn’t appeal, it’s more fashionable to simply say “I don’t believe all that JS stuff.” I’m not saying this is the case for Dan Vogel; but the word pious can either mean religious OR sham.
Is it possible to step back and realize that Joseph Smith was one of MANY who have had their questions answered by a loving God, i.e. through a vision and/or angel that was meant specifically and personally for him…but as many do…they want to share what they received and make a church! Sometimes when we receive these sacred answers, they are meant for our eyes only…one size does not fit all. Not denying HIS experience…he just took it to the next level. Many people have visions and angels in answer to their questions and pleas…I have no doubt that Joseph Smith had the experiences he did and his desire to take it somewhere in action took over…and here we are today!
“Of course, Dan is no longer a believer. “
Of course.
“He knows there’s no Lehi and Nephi and all that stuff”
If I am not to belief Joseph Smith, why should I believe Dan?
Michael2. Well, for one thing, Dan has done extensive research to back up his claims. For another, he’s open about where he’s coming from, And finally, he’s not telling anyone not to believe Joseph Smith. He’s offering a path to a more nuanced belief for those who would like to take it (in contrast to some people who insist that belief must be strictly black or white/in or out).
Rick, with the parameters you set at the end, I’m not sure what to to say. Assuming arguendo that the pious fraud theory is 100% accurate, it’s not an explanation that is going to motivate a believer or convince a nonbeliever.
“Oh yeah, our guy had a lot of really cool, true revelations. Of course, he had to invent a story with an angel named Moroni (or wasn’t it Nephi at one point?) who brought him so gold plates with ancient writing on them. That didn’t really happen, you see, but he had to make people think it happened so people would listen to him so he could pass on all these really cool, true revelations. He even went so far as to gin up some fake plates made out of tin, but kept them covered up, then used various objects, like peering at a pretty rock in a hat, to pretend to translate these plates. Oh yeah, I forgot to add that when he pretended to translate the plates, he was actually receiving a revelation from God about a group of people who lived in the Ancient Americas (oh and I should mention that there isn’t any particularly strong archaealogical or DNA evidence to suggest these people actually existed). Did I mention this guy was totally a prophet?”
Of course I’m being a bit silly, but I don’t see the pious fraud angle as anything more than an endpoint to religious belief, at least as far as a Mormonism is concerned.
“If I am not to belief Joseph Smith, why should I believe Dan?”
You shouldn’t automatically do so. You should do your own research on him, look at his research/what he’s teaching, and then decide if you find him credible. Ditto for JS.
Thanks for the interview. Dan Vogel is probably the leading historian on Joseph Smith. His explanation of JS’s life is probably the best we have and the one that is the most non-biased. I like Bushman as well, but he writes with too much concern about offending believers. Vogel’s history is more marketable to the wider religious studies crowd outside Mormonism. Even many LDS believers praise his work despite disagreeing with the pious fraud claim. It should also be notes that Ann Taves, the non-Mormon scholar of Mormonism most highly praised by believing historians such as Bushman and Givens generally agrees with Vogel’s take on Joseph Smith.
Dan Vogel has really shaped the way I view Joseph Smith and how I interpret and incorporate him into my belief system. In case anyone is interested, I think that JS had an encounter with the divine at age 14-15 in which he felt called to do something prophetic. That ended up being writing the Book of Mormon. He had trained as a magician and was good at big reveals and showmanship and came up with the golden plates story and the rolling out of the BOM project as a way to get interest and legitimacy. He used prop plates and created a huge buzz around the golden plates narrative. It got a little out of hand and he had to go somewhere else for things to settle down and for him to write the book. The translation was done by channeling the inspiration he felt and the production of the BOM was miraculous and inspired. The BOM was an inspired answer to the questions of his soul, how to heal his fractured family, how to get an increasingly secular America back to God and how to reconcile different Christian doctrines (Calvinism and Arminism). He used the popular stories and intriguing mysterious Native Americans as the setting for the story and doctrines.
After this project, he decided to set up a Church designed to be a place to manifest gifts of the spirit and to be like the early Christian church of Paul’s letters. As the Church grew, he needed to consolidate power and establish a theology to create order (the priesthood restoration narrative) and also had to rework the BOM and founding narrative to create legitimacy and move away from folk magic elements. He tried to recreate the BOM magic with the translation of the Bible and the Book of Abraham. These were more clumsy and less successful than the BOM. He developed the temple endowment as an appendant rite to freemasonry to help create an inner circle of loyal insiders and also tie into the masonic network.
As he got more power, he wrestled with his own temptations and demons, which culminated in a major abuse, polygamy. The natural result of corrupting power and abuse was his assasination. He was a complex person, able to channel the divine and charm and inspire people, but also falling temptations to using those gifts to manipulate people and achieve his own ends.
I see him as a prophetic voice in giving us the BOM, establishing a successful movement and rejecting the religious doctrines of the day and setting up something new.
I may be wrong, but I think this narrative explains all of the thorns in Church history and allows me to appreciate what Joseph did, acknowledge his faults and abuse and still find value in his legacy and the Church.
It should also be noted that Dan Vogel’s explanations of the Book of Abraham on YouTube are outstanding and have won the praise of BYU professor Brian Hauglid, who has published several articles on the Book of Abraham. Vogel really knows his stuff and is able to explain fine detail within a coherent broader framework. A true scholar.
We will be talking to Dan about Book of Abraham in a couple of weeks.
It is hard to judge a man you have never met. The historical record falls short of watching a person and measuring them. It is hard to know a person even if you can observe them. Invariably we cast the image of ourselves and our motives upon them as this is the lens that we see the world through. Our beliefs about reality are more lenses that distort our view.
You see this in academics who study religion. The believers see all through their dogma. The unbelievers see all through their dogma of unbelief.
So part of Dan’s view is more a reflection of Dan than Joseph. In the interpretation of events we treat the subject as friend or foe, true or false. Knowing events is useful, but can never pierce the veil that hides the real person.
It is remarkable what a poor uneducated farm boy accomplished. The beauty of some his doctrines like multiple kingdoms are sublime. The book of Mormon is far more sophisticated than most realize. Many of the sermons therein are straight up masterpieces. One line from memory may suffice to show the beauty, “If you have felt to sing the song of redeeming love, I would ask can feel so now?”. This is on par with the great Psalms of David.
My point here is that if Joseph were simply a pious fraud, how did he connect with the Divine? If there is a Divine, is it willing to associate with a fraud? Is the Divine unconcerned with the characters it associates with?
Joseph gets hammered with the paradigms of our time as we take our paradigms as true. But people from other times would hammer us with the paradigms that they believe are true.
Lane,
“So part of Dan’s view is more a reflection of Dan than Joseph”
If you’re going to dismiss Dan Vogel’s ideas by appealing to relativism (the idea that truth is in the eye of the beholder), then you have to subject ideas you agree with to a similar amount of relativism, otherwise you risk being guilty of a double standard. But alas, typical belief in Mormonism is far, far from relativistic. Its leaders regularly preach absolutism and absolute certainty in the truthfulness of particular teachings and doctrine (i.e., I know that x is true). Whenever I hear people rebutting perceived criticism of the LDS church with relativism, I am always skeptical that they are really relativists. I much prefer the logic of x claim made by y author is right because of z evidence, or x claim made by y author is wrong because of z counterevidence/logical fallacy, etc.
“My point here is that if Joseph were simply a pious fraud, how did he connect with the Divine?”
1) This is predicated upon the assumption that Joseph Smith communicated with the divine. 2) Bear in mind that historical research does not and should deal in what the divine is or determine whether or not someone represents that divine. This is a question beyond the scope of Vogel’s research and writings. Besides, I hear the argument made by believers in the LDS church who don’t believe in a historical Book of Mormon that God worked wonders (namely the creation and spread of the LDS church) through a sort of seeming fraud. Also, what’s not to say that the divine isn’t deceptive and tricky? I find it interesting in other religious beliefs (particularly ancient polytheistic beliefs) how there is a conception of the gods frequently playing tricks on people.
ReTx writes “You should do your own research on him [Dan Vogel], look at his research/what he’s teaching, “
Indeed I would if Dan Vogel was offering Eternal Life.
Michael is correct. All of this is only of interest to me to the extent it offers me a way to connect with the divine and inherit all that the Father offers me.If that promise is not part of the package why bother? If the eternities are not are not being offered I might as well sit home ,drink beer and watch the Telly. Dan is a smart guy etc but his interpretation offers no hope for individual salvation. It doe not offer us eternal life with a Supreme Being.. It holds out no hope for this pilgrim to find the eternal city built without hands that he seeks.If Dan is right why bother to even expend the emotional energy to initiate the inquiry ?
True scholars have never ,so far as I can determine brought anyone into the presence off God.
If the traditional narrative of Mormonism offers you the clearest path to connect with the Divine and get your eternal salvation, good for you and go for it! For me the history pokes too many holes in that narrative to hang onto it. In my view, it’s more about creating an ongoing relationship with the Divine and creating heaven on earth than about getting an eternal salvation (I think everyone will be saved). I think we don’t know much about the afterlife and it’s anyone’s guess as to what awaits. I want to focus on the here and now and am trying to make sense of how to navigate a life in the Church and the gospel narrative after going through a deconstruction of my previous belief system.
Lane,
“Invariably we cast the image of ourselves and our motives upon them as this is the lens that we see the world through.”
Is that not what you are doing to me? This is made much easier if you don’t hear what I have to say. This is simply ad hominem designed to dismiss the work of scholars the apologists don’t like.
“So part of Dan’s view is more a reflection of Dan than Joseph.” To say this you would have to know me quite well, which you don’t. Part of who I am is my ability as a researcher and scholar and to empathize with my subject, but you can’t know that without reading my work.
“And now behold, I say unto you, my brethren, if ye have experienced a change of heart, and if ye have felt to sing the song of redeeming love, I would ask, can ye feel so now?” (Alma 5:26)
This is not in the Bible, but “song of redeeming love” is typical revival language. The more you study and read the literature of Joseph Smith’s day, the less remarkable the Book of Mormon becomes. That’s not to diminish Joseph Smith’s achievement, it’s to put apologetic claims into perspective, which are largely subjective judgments about what Joseph Smith was or was not capable of doing. The sermons in the Book of Mormon, by far the most literary parts of the book, are drenched in revival imagery and language. Phrases such as “Have ye spiritually been born of God?” “Have ye received his image in your countenances?” “Have ye experienced this mighty change in your hearts?” (Alma 5:14); “If ye have felt to sing the song of redeeming love” (Alma 5:26; cf. 5:9, 26:13); “repent . . . while his arm of mercy is extended towards you in the light of day” (Jacob 6:5; cf. Mosiah 16:12, 29:20; Alma 5:33; 3 Ne. 9:14); “tasted and knew of the goodness of Jesus” (Mormon 1:15); “I am encircled about eternally in the arms of his love” (2 Nephi 1:15); are typical phrases Joseph Smith would have heard at the revivals he attended.
“My point here is that if Joseph were simply a pious fraud, how did he connect with the Divine?”
Scholarship can’t decide if Joseph Smith connected with the divine, but it can decide if the Book of Mormon is history or not. If the Book of Mormon is not history, what do we make of Joseph Smith? Believers might find ways to accommodate that information; that’s not my job. While scholars can’t decide if the Book of Mormon was inspired, I think they can explore the question of whether or not Joseph Smith thought he was inspired. I say yes, that is, according to his definition of inspiration.
“If there is a Divine, is it willing to associate with a fraud?”
Something I probably didn’t make clear enough in my interview with Rick is that both the Bible and Joseph Smith’s revelations contain passages that can be used to justify deception for righteous purposes. D&C 19 corrects the idea that punishment is eternal and then explains that God has used misleading language “that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men” (D&C 19:7). The Book of Abraham has God tell Abraham to tell Sarah to lie to Pharaoh about her marital status (Abr. 2:24). There are others.
Thanks for your comments, Lane. I think they are typical. If you feel inclined, you might want to hear what I have to say.
Felixfabulous just described me to a t…. thank you for putting it into words!
Dan Vogel – I appreciate the interview. I just finished your book “Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet”, recently made available for the Kindle at Amazon. It was fantastic. Your research is amazingly meticulous. I’d advise Lane to take the opportunity to read it before he opines on it. Another recommendation is Dan Vogel’s “Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon: Religious Solutions from Columbus to Columbus to Joseph Smith” Again, well researched and describes the early 19th century setting when Joseph Smith brought forth the Book of Mormon. Very good scholarship.
I really like Dan Vogel, I find him sincere and honest and very rigorous in his research. I am a believer – in God and the truth claims of Joseph Smith and the Church. At the same time I find myself agreeing with just about everything Dan writes as to the facts of the early restoration, with only slight variation in interpretation of those facts that leads him to interpret the world through an agnostic naturalistic lens, and I through a lens that is convinced of those truth claims. Keep up the good work! There are many people who appreciate what you do.