Multiple attestation lacking for the core LDS events

[Facsimile 3]

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.

I second that and just pose the question to Rob. How many people need to be gathered together with Joseph Smith seeing angels to meet your satisfaction?

[Rob Bowman]

Facsimile,

I addressed this issue in my opening post.

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

[Rob Bowman]

selek,

Your appeal to your individual, person testimony was addressed in my opening post.

For you to claim that my argument was not made "in good faith" is a personal attack that is baseless. I presented my argument in all seriousness and sincerity.

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.

[Rob Bowman]

Facsimile,

Why ask a question of someone you think is not dealing in good faith? And how many times must I point out that I addressed the issue of the arranged meeting between Joseph's three friends and the angel in my opening post?

I second that and just pose the question to Rob. How many people need to be gathered together with Joseph Smith seeing angels to meet your satisfaction?

[Rob Bowman]

Mordecai,

You wrote:

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.

I documented in my opening post why the First Vision is a first-level event.

[Mordecai]

I documented in my opening post why the First Vision is a first-level event.

With arbitrary mindless babbling and not with anything substantive. It's not necessary that we have multiple witnesses of that event, because the only important thing about that event is that Joseph Smith was called as a prophet. But we have multiple witnesses that he was a prophet, so we don't need witnesses for the initial calling. "This has been dealt with," is simply a way for you to dodge the issue. You've lost, and you know it. You must know how inherently flawed your entire premise is... really, you must.

[handys003]

handys,

You wrote:

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.

Thank you for backing up my assertion.

[CV75]

The pattern established in Scripture is that God does not ask the world or his people to believe something on the mere say-so of one man. Israel was supposed to believe Moses on the strength of the wonders that God did through him and because what Moses said and did fulfilled God

[USU78]

If a theophony is unaccompanied by a commission to undertake a mission of some kind, it would make it a unique event, unless I'm sorely mistaken. The typical theophony is always accompanied by a commission to undertake to deliver a message: "Here am I, send me."

It is the power that fills the deliverer of a commission from G-d that gives him his bona fides, not secondary events.

Moreover, since it's well established that only the wicked and adulterous seek a sign, but that signs are given to those who accept the commission because faith precedes miracles, our OP falls squarely within that group that demands a sign prior to the exercise of faith.

In doing so, the OP demonstrates a profound failure to understand even the first thing about Mormonism: faith. When such a profound lack is demonstrated, further conversation is impossible.

[Rob Bowman]

Mordecai,

You wrote:

With arbitrary mindless babbling and not with anything substantive. It's not necessary that we have multiple witnesses of that event, because the only important thing about that event is that Joseph Smith was called as a prophet. But we have multiple witnesses that he was a prophet, so we don't need witnesses for the initial calling. "This has been dealt with," is simply a way for you to dodge the issue. You've lost, and you know it. You must know how inherently flawed your entire premise is... really, you must.

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.... You're just stalling now.

[Rob Bowman]

USU78,

You wrote:

If a theophony is unaccompanied by a commission to undertake a mission of some kind, it would make it a unique event, unless I'm sorely mistaken. The typical theophony is always accompanied by a commission to undertake to deliver a message: "Here am I, send me." It is the power that fills the deliverer of a commission from G-d that gives him his bona fides, not secondary events.

First, the word is spelled theophany. Theophony does not seem to be a recognized word, but if it were, it would mean an experience of hearing God, not one of seeing God (which is what theophany means).

Second, I fail to see what your comments have to do with anything I said. I agree that theophanies always come with a message.

You wrote:

Moreover, since it's well established that only the wicked and adulterous seek a sign, but that signs are given to those who accept the commission because faith precedes miracles, our OP falls squarely within that group that demands a sign prior to the exercise of faith. In doing so, the OP demonstrates a profound failure to understand even the first thing about Mormonism: faith. When such a profound lack is demonstrated, further conversation is impossible.

You completely misunderstand Jesus' statement that an evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign (Matt. 12:39; 16:4). He is criticizing those who demand to have a miracle performed in their presence before they will believe. I am not asking you to perform a miracle in my presence. You say that faith precedes miracles. Not always: Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to Saul of Tarsus, and only then did he believe. James the Lord's brother also apparently did not believe until after the risen Lord appeared to him. Your dictum that faith precedes miracles has no relevance here, because the miracle in question supposedly happened 190 years ago. I am simply pointing out that we only have Joseph Smith's word for it that this miracle (the First Vision) ever happened.

I agree, of course, that we need faith. I have faith in God. I have faith in Jesus Christ. I do not have faith in Joseph Smith.

[volgadon]

You class the 1st vision as a level one, yet something like Isaiah's theophany is a level two or three?

[Vance]

Irrelevant, since these events are all at best second-level events and arguably are all third-level events, since they were private revelations to those men. Christianity does not stand or fall on those men's personal experiences.

So these verses are "at best second-level and arguably are all third-level"?

Isa. 44:6 Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

[selek]

I am simply pointing out that we only have Joseph Smith's word for it that this miracle (the First Vision) ever happened.

I agree, of course, that we need faith. I have faith in God. I have faith in Jesus Christ. I do not have faith in Joseph Smith.

No- you are alleging that we have only Joseph's word.

There is a difference.

"Pointing out" requires an evidentiary standard you've yet to meet.

There is every bit as much evidence for Joseph's First Vision as there is for the events on the road to Tarsus.

To a neutral observer, the only difference between your witness and ours is that yours are encrusted with two thousand years of embedded folk history.

And again, you misstate the simple truth.

We do not have "only Joseph's word" about the events in the Sacred Grove.

We have God's word on it.

You hold our prophet to a higher standard than our own, and casually dismiss our faith in Christ while leaning on your own to bolster your argument.

Both acts are examples of "special pleading" which is both a logical error and a dishonest rhetorical trick.

Until you're willing to take your thumb off the scales and assess the evidence fairly, you're arguing in bad faith.

Millions of Saints have followed the Bible's admonition to ask God- and they bear witness that God has endorsed and sustained his prophet, Joseph Smith.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Rob Bowman writes:

The most spectacular and crucial event for LDS faith is the appearance of the Father and the Son to young Joseph Smith in the woods near his home in the spring of 1820 (the

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

You wrote:

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.

I reject this. I think you are leaving out a critical aspect to mormonism.

No one is told to believe JS just because JS claimed it. WHy should I believe the bible? Because you have come up with a nifty analysis of 1,2, and 3 levels?

The reason I beleive the BoM is not because a bunch of people sat around and thought that it was believable or that they found a huge stock pile of archaeological evidence. I believe it because God answered my prayers and told me that it was true.

Christ's resurrection is not true becuase there was 500 unnamed eye witness to His resurrection. It is true becuase God has told me it was true. Peter knew that Jesus was the Chirst not becase he had a 1st level of eye witness. It was true to Peter and he knew it because God had revealed that truth to him.

It is hard for me to take yoru criticism seriously when you mis-repesnt it.

"To believe the fundamental historical claims of Mormonism, one must accept those claims on the basis of the testimony of one man, Joseph Smith."

Also you fail to inculde the many witness that were with JS during certain many of the visions.

I will have to go back and read the entire thread. I want to see your arguments. I admit that I have not read it all. I did read your op though.

[Rob Bowman]

Volgadon,

You asked:

You class the 1st vision as a level one, yet something like Isaiah's theophany is a level two or three?

Yes. Isaiah's theophany was not the foundational event of a new dispensation. LDS Church presidents and other leaders routinely describe Joseph Smith's First Vision in that way. Should I not accept their description of its importance?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I don't know anyone here personally, but I'm astonished that so many of you are having difficulty understanding my point. I am not talking about the importance of this or that verse of the Bible, or of this or that teaching. By "first-level event" I am referring to a particular kind of EVENT (hence "first-level event"), a reported historical occurrence that has the highest significance for the religion that affirms it.

So these verses are "at best second-level and arguably are all third-level"?

Isa. 44:6 Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

[Vance]

Vance,

I don't know anyone here personally, but I'm astonished that so many of you are having difficulty understanding my point. I am not talking about the importance of this or that verse of the Bible, or of this or that teaching. By "first-level event" I am referring to a particular kind of EVENT (hence "first-level event"), a reported historical occurrence that has the highest significance for the religion that affirms it.

So, what was the "foundational event of a new dispensation" that occurred 2 thousand years ago?

Was it the visitation of the angel to Zacharias?

Was it the visitation of the angel to Mary?

Was there more than one witness to the event?

I smell a double standard here.

[Rob Bowman]

selek,

Most of what you say in your post is preaching, not reasoning. I would appreciate it greatly if you would try to understand me before dismissing me as dishonest.

I have already responded several times to the comparison of the First Vision to the Damascus road conversion of Saul of Tarsus. The fact is that the evidence supporting Saul's experience is far greater:

* Paul mentions his experience of a revelation of the risen Jesus in his very first written account of his conversion from persecutor of Christians to Christian apostle (Galatians 1). Joseph Smith told his story many times of how he came to be a prophet and translate the Book of Mormon before he ever bothered to mention his supposed experience of seeing God the Father and Jesus Christ in 1820. Despite the numerous accounts Smith gave of the beginning of his work and the mountain of documents that he and his scribes produced between 1828 and 1838, during that time he never publicly spoke about or published any account of the First Vision for which we have any record.

* Paul's personal story requires some sort of dramatic experience to account for his conversion. All historians agree that Paul was a Pharisee who was zealous for observance of the Jewish Law and who persecuted Christians prior to becoming a Christian. After his conversion that same zealot for the Jewish Law considered it his mission in life to convert Gentiles to faith in Jesus as Messiah and full-fledged members of the people of God without requiring them to observe the Law. These are absolutely reliable historical facts, disputed by no historians. Something dramatic must have happened to change Paul's mind about Jesus and the Law. Even skeptics admit that Paul thought he had some sort of religious experience involving an encounter with the risen Jesus. Joseph Smith's personal story, on the other hand, does not require the First Vision at all. As I have already pointed out, Smith told his story numerous times without ever referring to the First Vision. There is no evidence of any sort of dramatic change in Smith's life after 1820.

* Paul was able to convince other apostles, who knew Jesus personally and had been appointed to be his authoritative representatives, that Paul had also seen the risen Jesus and had been appointed an apostle. The support of James, Peter, and John for Paul's apostleship is strong confirmation of his claim to have seen the risen Jesus. Joseph Smith's claim has no comparable support from any already established spokesman for Christ.

These three lines of comparison, taken cumulative, show that the evidence for Paul's conversion encounter with the risen Jesus is far superior to the evidence for Joseph Smith's First Vision. Furthermore, Paul's testimony is simply one of many testimonies from individuals in the first century who testified that Jesus had risen from the dead. Paul's testimony is corroborated by other witnesses. The First Vision is a unique event that happened only to Joseph Smith.

No- you are alleging that we have only Joseph's word.

There is a difference.

"Pointing out" requires an evidentiary standard you've yet to meet.

There is every bit as much evidence for Joseph's First Vision as there is for the events on the road to Tarsus.

To a neutral observer, the only difference between your witness and ours is that yours are encrusted with two thousand years of embedded folk history.

And again, you misstate the simple truth.

We do not have "only Joseph's word" about the events in the Sacred Grove.

We have God's word on it.

You hold our prophet to a higher standard than our own, and casually dismiss our faith in Christ while leaning on your own to bolster your argument.

Both acts are examples of "special pleading" which is both a logical error and a dishonest rhetorical trick.

Until you're willing to take your thumb off the scales and assess the evidence fairly, you're arguing in bad faith.

Millions of Saints have followed the Bible's admonition to ask God- and they bear witness that God has endorsed and sustained his prophet, Joseph Smith.

[Rob Bowman]

Ben,

You wrote:

Rob Bowman writes:The problem with this statement Rob, is that it isn't the most spectacular and crucial event for the LDS faith. It wasn't considered this way by early LDS members. It wasn't touted by the first converts or by Joseph Smith. The first vision doesn't begin to hit the radar until much later. The most spectacular and crucial event for the LDS faith was in fact the translation of the Book of Mormon from the Gold Plates - an event which was referred to often, was certainly used to convert others, and has been discussed far more than the first vision since 1830.

You're quite correct. However, since the early 1900s, LDS Church presidents, apostles, and other teachers have routinely claimed that the First Vision was the most important event in the history of the world since the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that the First Vision inaugurated a new dispensation, the era of the Restoration. My argument simply takes that claim seriously. If you are repudiating it, fine.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Vance,

I don't know anyone here personally, but I'm astonished that so many of you are having difficulty understanding my point. I am not talking about the importance of this or that verse of the Bible, or of this or that teaching. By "first-level event" I am referring to a particular kind of EVENT (hence "first-level event"), a reported historical occurrence that has the highest significance for the religion that affirms it.

It is possible that I have mis-understood your point. Perhaps you could clarify it and reword it and simplfy it a little more for me.

JS being a prophet of God is indeed a level one when it comes to the LDS faith.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ben,

You wrote:

You're quite correct. However, since the early 1900s, LDS Church presidents, apostles, and other teachers have routinely claimed that the First Vision was the most important event in the history of the world since the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that the First Vision inaugurated a new dispensation, the era of the Restoration. My argument simply takes that claim seriously. If you are repudiating it, fine.

I think I get it. It has been said that teh BoM is the keystone to our religion. THat if the BoM is true than all of the other truth claims of the church must be true as it would validate JS as being a true prophet.

[volgadon]

Volgadon,

You asked:

Yes. Isaiah's theophany was not the foundational event of a new dispensation. LDS Church presidents and other leaders routinely describe Joseph Smith's First Vision in that way. Should I not accept their description of its importance?

Yet something as major and foundational as Moses's calling is classed as second or third level.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

So, what was the "foundational event of a new dispensation" that occurred 2 thousand years ago?

Was it the visitation of the angel to Zacharias?

Was it the visitation of the angel to Mary?

Was there more than one witness to the event?

I smell a double standard here.

There's no double standard. I already identified the foundational events of the new dispensation that began two thousand years ago. Those events were the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. His death was a public event, and his resurrection was attested by numerous men and women who found his tomb empty and saw him alive from the dead. These witnesses included his closest friends, family members who had believed in him, family members who had regarded him as crazy, and a zealous opponent of the Jesus movement (Paul).