Multiple attestation lacking for the core LDS events

[Vance]

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).

Ah, I get it. YOU get to choose what is and is not the "foundational event" for both Mormonism and ancient Christianity. So you pick apples and oranges and VOILA you have exposed a big problem with Mormonism.

Now, feel free to tell me I don't get it.

Edited to add.

So you are comparing the opening event of the current dispensation to the greatest event of the ancient dispensation and then find problems with the comparison?

So yes, you ARE using a double standard.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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

Actually Moses and Abrahams calling are level one. There would be no Isreal with out Abraham's calling. It would seem that Abraham's calling was only atested by himself.

Similarly the law which was revealed to by Moses was called the..... Law of Moses. Salvation for a Jew did not exsist out side of that law.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

cks,

USU78 mentioned that Joseph Smith actually compared his experience to that of Paul. The comparison actually creates problems for the LDS claim, because Paul's witness to the risen Christ was just one of many, whereas Smith's witness to the foundational event of the Restoration was a solitary witness with no supporting or corroborating witnesses.

You are talking about the 1st vision. There is a whole lot more than just the 1st vision that supports JS claims as being a prophet. And you cannot separte it all just so you can claim that there is "no supporting or corroborating witnesses." With regards to the 1st vision you are correct. Just about everything else, there were witnesses. IT seems as though you are trying to limit it all down to just he 1st vision.

I think the break down comes though that Paul was a prophet because Christ did appear to him. Now he is not any less of a porphet because there was no corroborating witnesses. IT seems that you are trying to say that because JS didn't have any corroborating witnesses for the 1st vision that it really didn't happen. Also we have the BoM as a witness to both Jesus Christ and JS.

Another after thought is this: Even though Peter or Paul being a false prophet might not effect the truthfulness of Christianity, as you put it, it woould greatly effect the way you interpret that bible. If you were a Jew living in 70AD, would could you still gain salvation by ignoring them? Of course I cannot for the life of me see who Christianity would be true if Paul was a false prophet. It would seem that if that were indeed that case that that would undermine the whole point of the bible. I would have to wonder "who else is false and how could we tell".

[Ceeboo]

Hi Rob,

Just wanted to pop in and offer a few words, if I may.

Not being LDS, I have little to add to this thread that you are involved in but wanted to let you know that there are some like me( who are reading but not posting ) that REALLY appreciate you taking the time to come here and share your thoughts with all of us.

I have found some of your contributions ( having nothing to do with the LDS beliefs ) to be thought provoking as well as, IMHO, firmly cemented in Scripture.

At any rate, Thanks for taking your time to offer your perspectives.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[selek]

ROTFL!!

NO historians dispute Paul's claims of a divine intervention? None find the story questionable or dispute the veracityand factual nature of his claims?

None!?!?

Your stock just plummeted from "zealot arguing special pleading" to "authentic wacko".

Numerous Biblical scholars over the years have questioned the accuracy and veracity of the Gospels as presented. They have admitted that many of the books of the Bible were written by someone OTHER than their putative authors, sometimes decades after the fact.

Your bit of mind reading of special pleading does not change the fact that we have only Paul's word for what took place on that road-if you believe the ghost writers. All of the extant records regarding those events spring from the same source- Paul and his ghost writers.

There is no more factual evidence to support his claims than there is for the First Vision.

Your generous application of Handwavium-2390does not hide the fact that you are attempting to hold Mormon prophets to a different, higher standard than your own.

You are STILL not arguing in good faith.

As for the accusation of preaching- Physician, heal thyself!

[Deborah]

The opening post starts out demanding the evidence of multiple attestations to Mormonism and when the evidence is presented it's summarily rejected as not meeting the arbitrary criteria set by the OP. I think it's been answered pretty thoroughly but those who choose not to see will remain blind.

As has been stated there are numerous documented multiple witnesses to many of the events of the latter-day restoration. To throw those out because the First Vision wasn't witnessed is ludicrous.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

As has been stated there are numerous documented multiple witnesses to many of the events of the latter-day restoration. To throw those out because the First Vision wasn't witnessed is ludicrous.

This for me, gets to the heart of the matter. The truth claims of the church don't rest solely in the 1st vision. That is but one part and I would say one of the smaller parts. As that was just the beginning or start of the restoration.

[Vance]

This for me, gets to the heart of the matter. The truth claims of the church don't rest solely in the 1st vision. That is but one part and I would say one of the smaller parts. As that was just the beginning or start of the restoration.

Apparently you just don't get it. Rob gets to define what is and is not the "foundational event".

Sarc/off

Nothing like taking the most attested to event of the ancient dispensation and comparing it to one of the least attested to events of the current dispensation.

But don't worry, to do so isn't a double standard because ROB says it isn't a double standard.

Now, if we compare the opening events of both dispensations to each other, what would we find?

We would find that they are similar.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Apparently you just don't get it. Rob gets to define what is and is not the "foundational event".

Sarc/off

Nothing like taking the most attested to event of the ancient dispensation and comparing it to one of the least attested to events of the current dispensation.

But don't worry, to do so isn't a double standard because ROB says it isn't a double standard.

Now, if we compare the opening events of both dispensations to each other, what would we find?

We would find that they are similar.

That is why I bring up Abraham. There seems to be zero witnesses to his calling. Histroy cannot even verify if Abraham really lived. And a whole lot of truth claims go down the toilet of Abraham was not who he claimed to be. I for the life of me cannot see how that would not affect Christianity.

[Calm]

Mr. Bowman (hope that is the correct title, if not please correct me),

Could you please explain why it is the death of Christ and not his birth or even John the Baptist's ministry of preparation that marks the beginning of the Lord's dispensation? Without his birth and life, his death seems to be out of context. Even the numbering of the years seems to indicate a general agreement that time began anew at the Lord's birth since the Christian era begins at Jesus' birth, not his death.

[maklelan]

All,

Kolipoki09 and I exchanged some thoughts on another thread that I think merit separate discussion. I had stated that any new revelation, to be accepted by Christians, ought to cohere with previous, already established revelations (i.e., the Bible) and have cogent evidence supporting them.

Hi Rob. Glad to see you participating in the forum. I hope others are grateful to have someone around to keep them on their toes.

I think the statement you make above has some interesting implications. I think two kinds of revelations can be distinguished in relation to the question. A new revelation is either going to simply add something new to Church administration without changing anything, or it's going to alter something that's already there. Revelations that don't change anything are pretty much just prophesies, although more full revelations about God's nature can also occur (Moses' revelation at Mt. Sinai, for instance). The majority of revelations from the Bible change things (St. Peter's revelation to end Jewish dietary restrictions), and many times things change without revelations (the abolishing of circumcision). (You'll notice the two revelations mentioned were private revelations with no real cogent evidence.)

For this reason I don't think it's self evident from the Bible that new revelation must accord 100% with previously revealed truth. What you've stated is more along the lines of an assertion of the supremacy of a specific interpretation of the place of the Bible. You want a closed canon where the Christian faith has been chiseled in stone and unalterably ratified, leaving room only for prophecy. You also don't want additional revelation about God's nature. I think this is an ad hoc requirement that comes not from the Bible, but from Christian dogma. Since Paul Christian exegetes have sought the Christian gospel in the pages of the Hebrew Bible. Allegory and typology became the primary rhetorical devices for sewing together the Old and New Testaments, which anchored Christianity to the manifestly ancient Jewish faith and its scriptures, but it also satisfied their perceived need for revelatory continuity. Rev 22:18 says not to add or take anything away (and was appended to the Bible to serve as an ideological stop sign), but Deut 4:2 says the same. Christians felt they needed to respond to the same demand to which you are asking Latter-day Saints to respond in order to legitimize their claim. I don't think it was necessary, or particularly convincing. I think it's not necessary today either, since Evangelical Christianity is hardly going to accept a new revelation just because it doesn't conflict with the Bible. Mormonism can be shown to be in perfect agreement with many interpretations of the Bible, but Christians are concerned with their own interpretation, and in the Evangelical tradition that precludes new revelations and religious movements.

Kolipoki asked me what I meant by cogent evidence. I replied:

"Cogent evidence" would include, for starters, multiple, independent witnesses to any major, dispensation-changing, religiously revolutionary events of the order of magnitude of the resurrection of Christ.

But God's revelation to Moses in the burning bush on Sinai has no witnesses at all except Moses, and that is dispensation-changing and is considered by most to be one of the most important revelations of the Hebrew Bible. It's also thematically very similar to Joseph Smith's theophany.

This is something we just don't have for the major events on which the LDS Church's claims rest. I would be happy to elaborate on this observation if you're interested.

Kolipoki responded:

It is this issue of what I described as

[maklelan]

Surely, the claim that all Christian churches had become apostate and needed to be replaced by a restored church demands more evidence than the testimony of one man.

And this is why the Book of Mormon invites all to pray concerning it.

LDS First-Level Events: The Testimony of One Man

My contention is that the first-level events of LDS religion depend entirely on the testimony of one man, Joseph Smith. The core claims of the LDS Church turn out to be claims by and about Joseph Smith for which he is the only witness.

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

[cksalmon]

Hi selek:

You wrote:

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.

It certainly appears to me that we have only Joseph Smith's word for it.

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

Bowman has already stipulated something close to this: "That he personally saw the risen Jesus, however, is something for which we do not have independent testimony--but that in no way matters."

That is, neither event has an independent testimony. The question becomes, does it matter?

Would you concede that Smith's reported visitation in the grove is more important to Mormonism (as it is the foundational event of the Restoration) than Paul's Damascus road experience is to Christianity?

Curious.

Best.

cks

[selek]

CKS,

I would not concede that the events in the Sacred Grove are "The" foundational events, let alone that it is more important to Mormonism than the incident with Paul means to mainstream Christians.

For the record (again) Mormons ARE Christians- and both events are important.

As has been stated elsewhere in this thread, there are far more important and crucial events- the Translation of the Book of Mormon, the testimony of the Three and Eight, and the Restoration of the Priesthood all loom far larger in my mind than the Sacred Grove.

In terms of how important they are, I think that the Sacred Grove and the Road to Tarsus rate about the same- as wake up calls that give up insight into the apostles- but the theological heavy lifting was done later and could have been done with no mention of the singular events in the Grove and on the Road to Tarsus.

We're better off IMO, for knowing about these events- but even if we had no knowledge of them whatever, it wouldn't stop the work from going forward.

[USU78]

CKS,

I would not concede that the events in the Sacred Grove are "The" foundational events, let alone that it is more important to Mormonism than the incident with Paul means to mainstream Christians.

For the record (again) Mormons ARE Christians- and both events are important.

As has been stated elsewhere in this thread, there are far more important and crucial events- the Translation of the Book of Mormon, the testimony of the Three and Eight, and the Restoration of the Priesthood all loom far larger in my mind than the Sacred Grove.

In terms of how important they are, I think that the Sacred Grove and the Road to Tarsus rate about the same- as wake up calls that give up insight into the apostles- but the theological heavy lifting was done later and could have been done with no mention of the singular events in the Grove and on the Road to Tarsus.

We're better off IMO, for knowing about these events- but even if we had no knowledge of them whatever, it wouldn't stop the work from going forward.

Actually, it wouldn't much matter to us if it were determined that Saul/Paul was lying about his alleged experience(s).

Just as it doesn't much matter that he is, at least in his writings, decidedly unlovable.

When it comes to the experiences of JSJr -- the Grove . . . the Hill . . . the Angels . . . the Master and the Father -- I think they are of a different quality for the believing LDS. To the extent of that difference in quality, I would even agree with certain other posters. The alleged message of the Master expressed by Saul/Paul, even if it fails as Revelation, doesn't do damage to the Master or His Message as revealed in others' writings in the NT. The message of the Master expressed by JSJr, if it were to fail, would make a lot of difference to a whole lot of people.

IOW: Saul/Paul is highly expendable. JSJr isn't.

[maklelan]

Would you concede that Smith's reported visitation in the grove is more important to Mormonism (as it is the foundational event of the Restoration) than Paul's Damascus road experience is to Christianity?

I would point out that the most important event in Christianity (the Atonement) had no witnesses at all (they were asleep). Without the atonement he has no power to save and his rising from the dead is not necessarily on a different level than the raising of Lazarus and others.

[wenglund]

Wade,

I am in fact leaving it up to God to tell us on what basis we should accept revelations as being from God. I explained in my opening post that God has told us in the Bible repeatedly to look for multiple witnesses. My other stipulation, that any new revelations must cohere with what we know God has already revealed, also has support from God himself in the Bible.

That's odd. I read your OP and could find no scriptural quotes, but only a profusion of Bomen pontifications. So, unless you consider yourself God, you aren't leaving it up to God. You are leaving it up to yourself.

Where we humans really get ourselves into spiritual trouble is when we ignore what God has already said, and what God has already demonstrated is true, in order to hold on to what we have chosen to believe.

I appreciate the stark honesty of this self-disclosure.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[selek]

USU,

I sincerely believe that had Joseph faltered (he didn't), then another would have risen to take his place.

I cannot see the Lord allowing the work to cease because of one man.

And I am not questioning whether the events in the sacred Grove took place, nor the value of Joseph's contribution, nor the beauty of what we can learn from the Sacred Grove.

Had Joseph said nothing at all about the Sacred Grove, the work would still have gone forward.

And as I've said many times now- and I know YOU understand, my acceptance of the events in the Sacred Grove has nothing to do with Joseph's credibility- but with the Lord's.

I asked him to confirm and affirm both the events and Joseph's calling- and he did.

I need not quibble over whether their were eleven witnesses, eight or eighty- because I trust the one witness I have is sufficient.

That's what fools and dema gogues such as Bowman never seen to grasp- they're not asking us to choose between their reasoning and Joseph's word.

They're asking us to choose between their reasoning and GOD's word.

[USU78]

USU,

I sincerely believe that had Joseph faltered (he didn't), then another would have risen to take his place.

I cannot see the Lord allowing the work to cease because of one man.

And I am not questioning whether the events in the sacred Grove took place, nor the value of Joseph's contribution, nor the beauty of what we can learn from the Sacred Grove.

Had Joseph said nothing at all about the Sacred Grove, the work would still have gone forward.

And as I've said many times now- and I know YOU understand, my acceptance of the events in the Sacred Grove has nothing to do with Joseph's credibility- but with the Lord's.

I asked him to confirm and affirm both the events and Joseph's calling- and he did.

I need not quibble over whether their were eleven witnesses, eight or eighty- because I trust the one witness I have is sufficient.

That's what fools and dema gogues such as Bowman never seen to grasp- they're not asking us to choose between their reasoning and Joseph's word.

They're asking us to choose between their reasoning and GOD's word.

[volgadon]

IOW: Saul/Paul is highly expendable. JSJr isn't.

Yet there were some amazing things that only Paul could do.

Acts 20:7-12

[USU78]

Yet there were some amazing things that only Paul could do.

Acts 20:7-12

Talk people to death?

Do I detect a Dr. Scratch slam coming on?

[Hyrum Page]

In a way, I don't have a dog in this fight, since I am not a believer of any particular brand. But I still find it utterly amazing that the literature written and edited by Christian partisans is trusted implicitly centuries after the fact, while the supposed lack of "multiple attestation" for core events in the LDS restoration is deemed a weakness in Mormon claims. I mean, if it weren't done with such blinding arrogance and assurance, one would think it is some kind of horrible joke. It amazes me to no end that "old" somehow gets morphed into "true" simply because enough people don't question it.

Don't get me wrong, I support people following the inspiration that tells them to believe, but objectively speaking this brand of criticism of Mormonism, when coming from Christians, is laughable.

[USU78]

In a way, I don't have a dog in this fight, since I am not a believer of any particular brand. But I still find it utterly amazing that the literature written and edited by Christian partisans is trusted implicitly centuries after the fact, while the supposed lack of "multiple attestation" for core events in the LDS restoration is deemed a weakness in Mormon claims. I mean, if it weren't done with such blinding arrogance and assurance, one would think it is some kind of horrible joke. It amazes me to no end that "old" somehow gets morphed into "true" simply because enough people don't question it.

Don't get me wrong, I support people following the inspiration that tells them to believe, but objectively speaking this brand of criticism of Mormonism, when coming from Christians, is laughable.

Are you channeling Onkel Dale?

[wenglund]

With all due respect, the OP puts me in mind of John 9, in which the Pharisees were disputing Jesus' authority and the miracle of healing the blind man he had performed--and this because the miracle was performed on the Sabbath in violation of Pharisiac law, and as such, this meant that Jesus was a sinner and not of God. In short, whether intended or not, these human Pharisees presumed to dictate to God what qualifies as coming from God.

I believe the Pharisees got it wrong, and the blind man got it right when he said: "Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see. Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes? He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples? Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples. We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is. The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes."

So, while this miracle didn't fit the formula devised by the Pharisees, the blind man wisely understood it to be a miracle performed by God because of the change that had been wrought in him.

The way I see it, in principle the same applies to revelation. While the law of witnesses is useful for planting the seed of faith that a revelation is from God, a more sure witness of the verity of revelation from God, is the change it wroughts in our hearts and minds--a change from natural to spiritual man, a change from a worldly man to one becoming more and more like unto Christ. Whereas once we were spiritually blind, we now we spiritually see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Hyrum Page]

Are you channeling Onkel Dale?

Not deliberately, no.