Multiple attestation lacking for the core LDS events

[Rob Bowman]

Mordecai,

You wrote:

Three of the eleven witnesses, in addition to Joseph Smith who makes twelve, saw an angel as well. Said angel told them that the Book of Mormon was a divine work. http://en.fairmormon...Three_Witnesses http://www.lightplan.../witnesses.html

I specifically addressed this point in my opening post.

[Rob Bowman]

Volgadon,

I'd like to keep this thread relatively focused. This isn't the place to discuss Old Testament archaeology. Christianity rests on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ; the events of the Exodus are background to those first-level events. I discuss the evidence for the Exodus briefly in chapter 10 of my book 20 Compelling Evidences that God Exists. Egyptian references to the Exodus plagues include the Admonitions of Ipuwer.

[Rob Bowman]

Avatar,

You wrote:

In order to accept your premsie, we have to ignore the witnesses of those who were with Joseph when:

The Witnesses of the Book of Mormon saw the plates and Angel

The Aaronic Priesthood was restored

The Melchesidek Priesthood was restored

The Appearance of Moses, Elias, and Elijah to restore the keys to the Priesthood Orders

The Vision of the Three Degrees of Glory

The Appearance of the Father and the Son to the School of the Prophets

The visions at the Kirtland Temple dedication

The day of healing in Nauvoo

You are seriously going to argue that there were no witnesses? good luck

I'm sorry, but none of these reported events constitute first-level events. And I have already commented on a couple of these.

[Rob Bowman]

USU78,

You did not follow my argument at all, apparently. I didn't say that Isaiah's message was not important to Babylon, but that his personal experience, his vision of the Lord, was not directly relevant to the Babylonians (or anyone else) as the basis on which they were supposed to accept his message.

I'm looking around for the rabbit with the waistcoat and pocket watch.

In Isaiah 13, Isaiah delivers a specific message from G-d to Babylon, presumably both the people and the rulers. No prior revelation bore much on the "burden" Isaiah unloaded on them. It wouldn't matter a d@mn what had been previously written by Moses or Enoch or Methusaleh or anybody else, since the specific message was delivered to Isaiah either by G-d Himself or a messenger on G-d's behalf for further delivery to Israel's ancient enemy.

It doesn't much affect Isaiah other than, I suppose, in the nature of the effect on Jonah of his "burden" to be delivered to the Assyrians in Ninevah. To call it intensely important to Isaiah, but not for Babylon or, indirectly, to the Israelites who were, like us today, spectators, is to do great damage to the text.

[Mordecai]

I specifically addressed this point in my opening post.

This whole argument of your is drivel, to be honest. If you don't understand that the Book of Mormon's truthfulness is a first-level event, you don't understand the religion. You arbitrarily claim that Joseph Smith's first vision is a first level event, but the only thing important about that is that Joseph Smith was a prophet. It's only necessary to know that Joseph Smith was a prophet, in order to know that the Church is true and the restoration was necessary. If the Book of Mormon is true, obviously Joseph Smith was a prophet and the relevant truth is made known by multiple witnesses, including the many authors of the Book of Mormon.

[Rob Bowman]

Mortal Man,

You wrote:

There is not a single witness to the resurrection of Jesus Christ; i.e., no one actually saw him rise from the tomb.

I never said anyone saw him rise from the tomb. How about address the argument I actually presented, not a strawman version of it? Numerous individuals saw Jesus alive and also saw that the tomb was empty.

You wrote:

We only have third and fourth-hand accounts, written many decades after the fact, which contradict each other regarding who was there afterward, what they saw and what was said.

It never ceases to amaze me that Mormons will tear down the Bible like skeptics to buttress their belief in their latter-day revelations. Your statement is false. Paul wrote letters in which he personally testified that he saw the risen Jesus; these are first-hand accounts from Paul himself. John's Gospel was written by an eyewitness (John 19:35; 21:24-25). The apparent, so-called "contradictions" in the Gospel resurrection narratives only serve to confirm that these are derived from independent testimonies.

You wrote:

Like Matthew and Luke are dependent on Mark.

Where Matthew and Luke follow Mark, I agree that they are dependent on Mark. But they also have information that does not come from Mark. Most biblical scholars identify at least one additional source that Matthew and Luke used that was independent of Mark (this source is dubbed "Q"). So that's at least two sources of information about Jesus. Then there is the Gospel of John, which has a lot of information not found in the Synoptics. So that's at least three sources of information.

Furthermore, Richard Bauckham has made a strong case for all four of the Gospels being based on the eyewitness testimonies of several individuals. See his book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.

You wrote:

JS had multiple shared visions for which we have corroborating accounts.

I have already addressed this objection a few times.

You wrote:

quote]Lucy and others witnessed and recorded the comings and goings and saw the translating equipment.

[Rob Bowman]

handys,

You wrote:

I'll play from a former atheist position for part of this.

Why should I bother responding to such arguments, assuming that as a former atheist you no longer accept these arguments yourself?

As I have already noted, I am constantly amazed that Mormons are willing to use atheistic, skeptical arguments--bogus criticisms--against the Bible in order to salvage the credibility of the LDS scriptures. I just got through saying this, and look, you are even admitting that you are using arguments from that perspective.

Start over, please, and present arguments you really think are sound.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mortal Man,

Now you are sounding like a Jewish skeptic, of all things. Are you a believing LDS? Do not the LDS Church and its scriptures explicitly teach that Jesus fulfilled OT prophecies?

Rob,

FYI, MM is LDS but he serious doubts to the truth claims of the LDS are even the bible, Christianity or any other religious claims.

[Rob Bowman]

Mordecai,

You wrote:

This whole argument of your is drivel, to be honest. If you don't understand that the Book of Mormon's truthfulness is a first-level event, you don't understand the religion. You arbitrarily claim that Joseph Smith's first vision is a first level event, but the only thing important about that is that Joseph Smith was a prophet. It's only necessary to know that Joseph Smith was a prophet, in order to know that the Church is true and the restoration was necessary. If the Book of Mormon is true, obviously Joseph Smith was a prophet and the relevant truth is made known by multiple witnesses, including the many authors of the Book of Mormon.

That's a big "if"!

If you can establish that the Book of Mormon is true, that would of course be an independent testimony to Joseph Smith's claim to be a prophet of God. The alleged testimony of an angel to three of Joseph Smith's friends does not, however, demonstrate the truth of the Book of Mormon.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

Thanks for this information.

Mortal Man,

I apologize if I caused any offense.

Rob,

FYI, MM is LDS but he serious doubts to the truth claims of the LDS are even the bible.

[volgadon]

The alleged testimony of an angel to three of Joseph Smith's friends does not, however, demonstrate the truth of the Book of Mormon.

Nor does an alleged appearance of Christ to Paul demonstrate the truth of the New Testament.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mordecai,

You wrote:

That's a big "if"!

If you can establish that the Book of Mormon is true, that would of course be an independent testimony to Joseph Smith's claim to be a prophet of God. The alleged testimony of an angel to three of Joseph Smith's friends does not, however, demonstrate the truth of the Book of Mormon.

You do realise that by saying this you would also have to acknowledge that the alleged testimones of those that claimed to see Jesus do not prove that Jesus was who he claimed to be, ie the truth claims of Christianity. We cannot even validate through independent testimony that the bible is what it claims to be. Are there a few palces we can find? Yes, but that does not mean that every thing that is claimed happened. Is there more acrhaeological evidence for the bible than the BoM? Yes. But questions such as "Is Jesus really the Son of God" that cannot be proved through archaeology.

THere really is no physical evidence that would validate the truth of any religious truth claim as faith is one of the central tenats of Christianity. The only thing that will "prove" if something is true seems to be from God. Why does Jesus just not show himself to everybody right now? That would sure clear up a whole lot of confusion. Yes?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Nor does an alleged appearance of Christ to Paul demonstrate the truth of the New Testament.

Yeah, I was scratching my head at the opening post about Paul's conversion. As it was very similar to JS.

Crap, I have tooth past in my hair from my kids. Now I have to go wash my hair.

[Sevenbak]

Nor does an alleged appearance of Christ to Paul demonstrate the truth of the New Testament.

Is this like saying the appearance of God the Father and Jesus on His right hand, to Stephen as he was being stoned, mean that there were not 2 separate personages? /sarc

[volgadon]

So all these multiple witnesses for Christ are rather like Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Lorenzo Snow, Wilford Woodruff, and Joseph F Smith for Mormonism, right?

[Rob Bowman]

Volgadon,

You wrote:

Nor does an alleged appearance of Christ to Paul demonstrate the truth of the New Testament.

This doesn't seem to be a serious response to my argument. I have already carefully explained that Paul's testimony is just one of many independent testimonies to the same fundamental truth of the New Testament, namely, that Jesus rose from the dead. Paul's testimony by itself would not be good evidence of the resurrection. Multiple independent witnesses provide a very strong evidential case for the resurrection.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote:

You do realise that by saying this you would also have to acknowledge that the alleged testimones of those that claimed to see Jesus do not prove that Jesus was who he claimed to be, ie the truth claims of Christianity. We cannot even validate through independent testimony that the bible is what it claims to be. Are there a few palces we can find? Yes, but that does not mean that every thing that is claimed happened. Is there more acrhaeological evidence for the bible than the BoM? Yes. But questions such as "Is Jesus really the Son of God" that cannot be proved through archaeology.

THere really is no physical evidence that would validate the truth of any religious truth claim as faith is one of the central tenats of Christianity. The only thing that will "prove" if something is true seems to be from God. Why does Jesus just not show himself to everybody right now? That would sure clear up a whole lot of confusion. Yes?

None of this addresses the point of my argument. To believe the fundamental historical claims of Mormonism, one must accept those claims on the basis of the testimony of one man, Joseph Smith. This is not the case with the fundamental historical claims of Christianity.

[volgadon]

None are really any more independent than LDs ones for LDS claims are, aren't they?

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote:

Yeah, I was scratching my head at the opening post about Paul's conversion. As it was very similar to JS.

I have addressed this point in some detail.

[Rob Bowman]

Volgadon,

You wrote:

So all these multiple witnesses for Christ are rather like Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Lorenzo Snow, Wilford Woodruff, and Joseph F Smith for Mormonism, right?

Wrong.

[volgadon]

wrong? How so?

[Facsimile 3]

Mortal Man,

I never said anyone saw him rise from the tomb. How about address the argument I actually presented, not a strawman version of it? Numerous individuals saw Jesus alive and also saw that the tomb was empty.

I fail to see how this is any different:

While the Prophet Joseph Smith was in Fayette, the Lord revealed that Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris were to be three special witnesses who would be permitted to see the gold plates (see 2 Nephi 27:12; Ether 5:2

[selek]

This entire thread is spurious nonsense by a zealot making a special pleading for his own beliefs and holding those of others to a higher standard in order to score points.

It is not an argument in good faith.

The bottom line is this:

Every faithful Mormon who has a testimony has a separate, tangible attestation from God that is every bit as real and every bit as valid as that given to Paul.

That we must rely on the word of Joseph Smith is errant nonsense- our testimony and our faith come from God.

I take his word over Joseph's every day- as do many millions of other Latter-day Saints.

That more than meets the ludicrous "multiple witnesses" test our erstwhile accuser has fabricated.

[Mordecai]

That's a big "if"!

If you can establish that the Book of Mormon is true, that would of course be an independent testimony to Joseph Smith's claim to be a prophet of God. The alleged testimony of an angel to three of Joseph Smith's friends does not, however, demonstrate the truth of the Book of Mormon.

It demonstrates it as well as the Bible demonstrates that Jesus was the Son of God. If you accept that Jesus was the Son of God, as you clearly must in order to be saved, based on the testimony of Biblical witnesses, then by that same means of arriving at truth, you can accept the Book of Mormon as true. We have many, many witnesses for the angels and miracles at the temple in Kirtland as well. That's as good as the day of Pentacost, as well. Why must Joseph Smith's first-vision have multiple witnesses, when the only point of that was that Joseph Smith was a prophet? Why is that a first-level event? It wasn't. It's just an arbitrary label you made up. If that was a first-level event, then so was the angel appearing and the plates being shown to witnesses.

[Facsimile 3]

It demonstrates it as well as the Bible demonstrates that Jesus was the Son of God. If you accept that Jesus was the Son of God, as you clearly must in order to be saved, based on the testimony of Biblical witnesses, then by that same means of arriving at truth, you can accept the Book of Mormon as true. We have many, many witnesses for the angels and miracles at the temple in Kirtland as well. That's as good as the day of Pentacost, as well.

Dedication of the Temple

With the completion of the temple, the Lord poured out powerful spiritual blessings upon the Saints in Kirtland, including visions and the ministering of angels. Joseph Smith called this period