Multiple attestation lacking for the core LDS events

[USU78]

Not deliberately, no.

I say this because he has developed a hierarchy of reliability of the various books in the Tanakh, NT, and various Mormon scripture.

Moreover, he, like you, has mused on the possibility that, given enough time, people outside Mormondom as presently defined will generally accept the BoM as scripture on a par with the Tanakh and NT.

BTW: He puts Deuteronomy and the BoM on more or less equal terms; D having been "found" in the Temple by Hulda the Prophetess and the BoM's urtext having been "found" in the hill by JSJr.

A Mormon Weltanschauung leads to all sorts of interesting viewpoints. Once you accept "as far as it is translated correctly," it frees you from hide-bound-ness.

[Hyrum Page]

I say this because he has developed a hierarchy of reliability of the various books in the Tanakh, NT, and various Mormon scripture.

Moreover, he, like you, has mused on the possibility that, given enough time, people outside Mormondom as presently defined will generally accept the BoM as scripture on a par with the Tanakh and NT.

BTW: He puts Deuteronomy and the BoM on more or less equal terms; D having been "found" in the Temple by Hulda the Prophetess and the BoM's urtext having been "found" in the hill by JSJr.

A Mormon Weltanschauung leads to all sorts of interesting viewpoints. Once you accept "as far as it is translated correctly," it frees you from hide-bound-ness.

Well, Uncle Dale is a smart man. He is one of the unsung jewels of Mormon Studies. His website has made many valuable materials available to the masses. I may disagree with him about Spalding-Rigdon, but he has a lot of good ideas otherwise.

These ideas you are alluding to sound intriguing. The connection of Josiah and Joseph Smith is, in my opinion, spot on.

[Vance]

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-

[Droopy]

One bottom line (one of several) to all this appears to be that Rob Bowman (with whom I first engaged online some ten or twelve years ago), while highly critical of the Restored gospel, has no real ground to his own beliefs. This is manifest in his holding the LDS Church to higher or alternative standards than he holds the OT and NT. One example of this is his claim that x number of witnesses saw something or experienced y.

What Bowman wants to slip under the radar is that, if you look at the source for those claims, you inevitably (of course) come to the Bible, and if you go a little further, particularly in the case of the NT, you find the source for such claims to be a single author, or small group of authors dependent upon one another; Paul, Mark, Luke, Matthew etc. In other words, when Bowman claims that scores, hundreds, or thousands of witnesses observed something (such as Jesus alive after his Crucifixion), what he really means is that a NT writer claims there were x number of witnesses to a specific event. Jesus fed upwards of 5,000 people, or so a single New Testament writer, dependent upon a prior source, claims. If all are drawing upon the same source, ('Q' for example), this makes things all the worse, as it puts all the eggs in the 'Q' basket.

So on the basis of a single, unknown, and hypothetical ancient source tradition or text, we are to believe numerous stories of a man who claimed to be God and defied the laws of known physics on many occasions, died, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. We are to believe Paul, who never himself experienced any of these events, simply because he believed them to be true and claims he experienced a direct revelation and angelic visitation as the key events determining his conversion. We are to believe histories written fifty to seventy years after the events in question, written by true believers, attesting to these fantastic events. We are to believe single authors, passing on a religious tradition, some two thousand years ago, who claim there were witnesses other than themselves. We must trust them (Mark, Luke, John etc.) because we have no independent corroboration outside the scriptural record.

And yet, the events surrounding the Restoration mirror in every conceivable way similar events in biblical texts. Will Bowman accept these as legitimate? No. Why? Interestingly, his standards of evidence are different for Joseph than for the ancient NT or OT writers. There is something about them that is different about Joseph, even when events and patterns remain the same.

Were I a convinced atheist, Bowman has given me nothing remotely like good reasons to become an evangelical Christian. The fact that the Bible makes numerous claims that are well beyond normative verification, falsification, or any conceivable standard of evidence whereby they could be reasonably weighed as to their veracity as opposed to Mormonism (or other religious systems, for that matter), seems lost in his insistence upon an attempt to verify the gospel through rational argument and historical inspection.

Not only does this seem umbiblical on its face, but Joseph Smith's claims appear just as legitimate/illegitimate, based upon Bowman's own standards,as they are likely to be unless one retreats to the principle of revelation and undertakes to come to a knowledge for oneself of the truth of the matter.

What Moses saw on Sinai appears in the Book Moses wrote (and which was substantially edited by later redactors). Any witnesses therein, claimed by Moses to exist, we must take on Moses' word that they did exist. As we have no historical or archeological evidence, outside the scriptures, that Moses even existed, we run into a problem here, not the least of which is that, even assuming Moses did exist, any claims of witnesses are ultimately predicated upon Moses as a witness to the witnesses. In the same way, the many people who saw Jesus after his physical death are attested to by the writer who makes the claim that they existed.

Bowman argues in circle after circle after circle here but remains certain that the Mormon church is false, even though his own religious system appears to be subject to the very same problems and conditions upon which he basis his criticism of the Church.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

This is indeed a great point. I missed it to. This is a more powerful example then evemy my Abraham example.

[Zakuska]

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. 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. 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.

One has to wonder how Peter's Table cloth vision stacks up... By all accounts he was alone on the roof top praying... (Acts 10:9-19)

Talk about your "major, dispensation-changing, religiously revolutionary events" as that!

I also fail to see how that "coheres with previous, already established revelations (i.e., the Bible)".

There went most of the book of Leviticus in a single swoop!

[cksalmon]

Hi mak--

You wrote:

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.

I don't know who "they" are, but I think I understand the force of your point. But, it strikes me as an obvious category error.

The Atonement is not an historically investigable event, susceptible to human attestation, in the same sense as the First Vision or Paul's visionary experience.

This is a comparison of apples with astronauts.

Best.

cks

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hi mak--

You wrote:

I don't know who "they" are, but I think I understand the force of your point. But, it strikes me as an obvious category error.

The Atonement is not an historically investigable event, susceptible to human attestation, in the same sense as the First Vision or Paul's visionary experience.

This is a comparison of apples with astronauts.

Best.

cks

I disagree. Both events were unique and a whole lot things rest on what happened in with Christ atonement.

It the atonement were proven to be false then that would undermine all of Christianity. I suspect that you will disagree with, and that is OK.

[USU78]

One bottom line (one of several) to all this appears to be that Rob Bowman (with whom I first engaged online some ten or twelve years ago), while highly critical of the Restored gospel, has no real ground to his own beliefs. This is manifest in his holding the LDS Church to higher or alternative standards than he holds the OT and NT. One example of this is his claim that x number of witnesses saw something or experienced y.

What Bowman wants to slip under the radar is that, if you look at the source for those claims, you inevitably (of course) come to the Bible, and if you go a little further, particularly in the case of the NT, you find the source for such claims to be a single author, or small group of authors dependent upon one another; Paul, Mark, Luke, Matthew etc. In other words, when Bowman claims that scores, hundreds, or thousands of witnesses observed something (such as Jesus alive after his Crucifixion), what he really means is that a NT writer claims there were x number of witnesses to a specific event. Jesus fed upwards of 5,000 people, or so a single New Testament writer, dependent upon a prior source, claims. If all are drawing upon the same source, ('Q' for example), this makes things all the worse, as it puts all the eggs in the 'Q' basket.

So on the basis of a single, unknown, and hypothetical ancient source tradition or text, we are to believe numerous stories of a man who claimed to be God and defied the laws of known physics on many occasions, died, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. We are to believe Paul, who never himself experienced any of these events, simply because he believed them to be true and claims he experienced a direct revelation and angelic visitation as the key events determining his conversion. We are to believe histories written fifty to seventy years after the events in question, written by true believers, attesting to these fantastic events. We are to believe single authors, passing on a religious tradition, some two thousand years ago, who claim there were witnesses other than themselves. We must trust them (Mark, Luke, John etc.) because we have no independent corroboration outside the scriptural record.

And yet, the events surrounding the Restoration mirror in every conceivable way similar events in biblical texts. Will Bowman accept these as legitimate? No. Why? Interestingly, his standards of evidence are different for Joseph than for the ancient NT or OT writers. There is something about them that is different about Joseph, even when events and patterns remain the same.

Were I a convinced atheist, Bowman has given me nothing remotely like good reasons to become an evangelical Christian. The fact that the Bible makes numerous claims that are well beyond normative verification, falsification, or any conceivable standard of evidence whereby they could be reasonably weighed as to their veracity as opposed to Mormonism (or other religious systems, for that matter), seems lost in his insistence upon an attempt to verify the gospel through rational argument and historical inspection.

Not only does this seem umbiblical on its face, but Joseph Smith's claims appear just as legitimate/illegitimate, based upon Bowman's own standards,as they are likely to be unless one retreats to the principle of revelation and undertakes to come to a knowledge for oneself of the truth of the matter.

What Moses saw on Sinai appears in the Book Moses wrote (and which was substantially edited by later redactors). Any witnesses therein, claimed by Moses to exist, we must take on Moses' word that they did exist. As we have no historical or archeological evidence, outside the scriptures, that Moses even existed, we run into a problem here, not the least of which is that, even assuming Moses did exist, any claims of witnesses are ultimately predicated upon Moses as a witness to the witnesses. In the same way, the many people who saw Jesus after his physical death are attested to by the writer who makes the claim that they existed.

Bowman argues in circle after circle after circle here but remains certain that the Mormon church is false, even though his own religious system appears to be subject to the very same problems and conditions upon which he basis his criticism of the Church.

Which is why his taxonomy is so underwhelming.

USU "Closely encountering" 78

[Rob Bowman]

selek,

It is my policy to respond with gentleness to those who are ignorant but do not arrogantly pretend to be otherwise. Those who repeatedly express themselves with contempt and arrogance while demonstrating their inability to read the instructions on a milk carton ("Open Here"), on the other hand, require a different sort of response.

Here is what I wrote:

"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."

You replied:

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!?!?

Of course not. I said no such thing. What I said was that no historians dispute that (1) Paul persecuted Christians out of his zeal for the Law before his conversion and (2) he became a Christian apostle bent on bringing Gentiles into the covenant people of God without requiring them to observe the Law. I did not say that all historians agree that (3) the divine Lord Jesus appeared to Paul.

You wrote:

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

If I were one of your religious brethren, I would be embarrassed.

[Mortal Man]

Level-one: Events that are so important that if they happened, the religion associated with them must be true, and if they did not happen, the religion must be false.

...

The First Vision and the appearances of the angel to Joseph Smith to disclose the Book of Mormon plates would be examples of first-level events.

...

As far as I can tell, the founding of the LDS Church happened without any knowledge or assumption of the occurrence of the First Vision, and if Joseph Smith had never told the story, it would have made little difference.

You keep contradicting yourself as to what constitutes a level-one event. Which way are you going to have it?

Numerous individuals saw Jesus alive and also saw that the tomb was empty.

Numerous individuals have seen and conversed with the Blessed Virgin Mary and they didn't wait several decades to record their experiences.

It never ceases to amaze me that Mormons will tear down the Bible like skeptics to buttress their belief in their latter-day revelations.

I'm not buttressing anything; I'm simpy saying that if you apply the same critical methodology to Jesus that you do to Joseph Smith, he falls just as quickly.

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.

Sounds like Oliver Cowdery.

John's Gospel was written by an eyewitness (John 19:35; 21:24-25).

Nephi's Gospel was written by an eyewitness (3 Nephi 5:17-18); and, just like John, he assures us that his own record is true.

The apparent, so-called "contradictions" in the Gospel resurrection narratives only serve to confirm that these are derived from independent testimonies.

The contraditions are not "so-called" and they serve to confirm that the oral tradition spawned multiple threads before it was written down.

This is, frankly, absurd. We have hundreds of complete copies of the Gospels in their original language dating from as early as 100-150 years or so after they were written (thousands of incomplete copies and portions, some only decades after the Gospel was written). We have zero copies of even one of the books in the Book of Mormon, zero copies of the Book of Abraham (even though some of the scrolls from which it was taken were recovered), and zero copies of the Book of Moses in their original languages. We have no physical evidence whatsoever for the existence of any of these books, even if we count the English texts that Joseph Smith produced, prior to the 1800s.

You said "the Joseph Smith revelations," which most LDS take to mean the D&C. The BoM, BoA & Book of Moses would more properly be called "the Joseph Smith translations."

Let's make an apples-to-apples comparison. I contend that there is better evidence for the restoration of the Aaronic priesthood than there is for Paul's vision on the road to Damascus. In the first case, we have a specific date, a specific location and two independent witnesses who gave corroborating first-hand accounts. In the second case, we have no known date, a vague location, and contradictory third-person accounts.

9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the ^avoice of him that spake to me.

[Mortal Man]

Mortal Man,

I apologize if I caused any offense.

None taken.

No one on this board is capable of offending me.

BTW, welcome to MADB. Things were getting a little stale before you arrived (we've been surviving off re-runs of the "Dan Peterson and his Malevolent Stalker" soap opera).

I enjoy the manner in which you make your arguments. I haven't had a good firefight in a while.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You are mistaken. I am comparing the greatest event of the Christian dispensation (the resurrection of Jesus Christ) with the greatest event of the Restoration dispensation (the First Vision), according to LDS Church presidents and other known and respected teachers. This comparison is one that such leaders have explicitly and repeatedly made (bold emphasis added):

"The greatest event that has ever occurred in the world since the resurrection of the Son of God from the tomb, and his ascension on high, was the coming of the Father and of the Son to that boy Joseph Smith, to prepare the way for the laying of the foundation of his kingdom

[volgadon]

The point is that this wasn't percieved as a level one in the earliest years.

[handys003]

One bottom line (one of several) to all this appears to be that Rob Bowman (with whom I first engaged online some ten or twelve years ago), while highly critical of the Restored gospel, has no real ground to his own beliefs. This is manifest in his holding the LDS Church to higher or alternative standards than he holds the OT and NT. One example of this is his claim that x number of witnesses saw something or experienced y.

What Bowman wants to slip under the radar is that, if you look at the source for those claims, you inevitably (of course) come to the Bible, and if you go a little further, particularly in the case of the NT, you find the source for such claims to be a single author, or small group of authors dependent upon one another; Paul, Mark, Luke, Matthew etc. In other words, when Bowman claims that scores, hundreds, or thousands of witnesses observed something (such as Jesus alive after his Crucifixion), what he really means is that a NT writer claims there were x number of witnesses to a specific event. Jesus fed upwards of 5,000 people, or so a single New Testament writer, dependent upon a prior source, claims. If all are drawing upon the same source, ('Q' for example), this makes things all the worse, as it puts all the eggs in the 'Q' basket.

So on the basis of a single, unknown, and hypothetical ancient source tradition or text, we are to believe numerous stories of a man who claimed to be God and defied the laws of known physics on many occasions, died, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. We are to believe Paul, who never himself experienced any of these events, simply because he believed them to be true and claims he experienced a direct revelation and angelic visitation as the key events determining his conversion. We are to believe histories written fifty to seventy years after the events in question, written by true believers, attesting to these fantastic events. We are to believe single authors, passing on a religious tradition, some two thousand years ago, who claim there were witnesses other than themselves. We must trust them (Mark, Luke, John etc.) because we have no independent corroboration outside the scriptural record.

And yet, the events surrounding the Restoration mirror in every conceivable way similar events in biblical texts. Will Bowman accept these as legitimate? No. Why? Interestingly, his standards of evidence are different for Joseph than for the ancient NT or OT writers. There is something about them that is different about Joseph, even when events and patterns remain the same.

Were I a convinced atheist, Bowman has given me nothing remotely like good reasons to become an evangelical Christian. The fact that the Bible makes numerous claims that are well beyond normative verification, falsification, or any conceivable standard of evidence whereby they could be reasonably weighed as to their veracity as opposed to Mormonism (or other religious systems, for that matter), seems lost in his insistence upon an attempt to verify the gospel through rational argument and historical inspection.

Not only does this seem umbiblical on its face, but Joseph Smith's claims appear just as legitimate/illegitimate, based upon Bowman's own standards,as they are likely to be unless one retreats to the principle of revelation and undertakes to come to a knowledge for oneself of the truth of the matter.

What Moses saw on Sinai appears in the Book Moses wrote (and which was substantially edited by later redactors). Any witnesses therein, claimed by Moses to exist, we must take on Moses' word that they did exist. As we have no historical or archeological evidence, outside the scriptures, that Moses even existed, we run into a problem here, not the least of which is that, even assuming Moses did exist, any claims of witnesses are ultimately predicated upon Moses as a witness to the witnesses. In the same way, the many people who saw Jesus after his physical death are attested to by the writer who makes the claim that they existed.

Bowman argues in circle after circle after circle here but remains certain that the Mormon church is false, even though his own religious system appears to be subject to the very same problems and conditions upon which he basis his criticism of the Church.

Thank you Droopy you explained that much better than I did! You know that RB is going to dismiss your arguement.

[Tsjoeva]

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.

Hoi Maklelan,

I hope that it is in Oxfort better weather as we have here. I am longing to the summer......

I hope I translate it well. Because of this. I will gave you first a summary what I think you mean. So if I am not correct, please forgive me. And I hope you have the patience to make it clear to me.

What I understand from your posting is, without the atonement, Jesus couldn't save any people?

And why is His rising from the dead not necessarily a different level than the raising of Lazarus?

First I will say: Jesus said:"All power is given unto Me in Heaven and on earth."

So Jesus got the power to save. Because All power was given to Him.

But further: In Luc 19:8-10 And Zacchaeus stood and said unto the Lord, "Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken anything from any man by false accusation, I restore to him fourfold."

9 And Jesus said unto him, "This day is salvation come to this house, in that he also is a son of Abraham.

10 For the Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost."

I think those Scriptures let us see, that Jesus got the power to save, without the atonement. In our country atonement mean: the relationship between the human and God is restored. But the different is in my view: In the OT, you have to bring an offer, when you made a sin. The animal was carry the punishment for you. But now, Jesus was the Offer for all. So from my point of view, Jesus could save before the atonement. We can read it in the Bible that He did.

The second: In my point of view, the resurrection is from a different level: Because if it wasn't, Jesus wasn't the first who arise from the death. But the different is all of them died again. And his resurrection was is forever. If itsn't from a different level well Jesus didn't say .

[Mordecai]

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

Let me ask you this, do we have any witnesses of Jesus's spirit ascending to his Father? Do we have any witnesses of resurrected beings not later dying? Do we have any witnesses of Jesus being conceived of the Holy Ghost? If not, by your own standards, you have proven Christianity to not be good enough for Christian standards! Good job. ha ha ha

[maklelan]

Hoi Maklelan,

I hope that it is in Oxfort better weather as we have here. I am longing to the summer......

No, Oxford is cold and wet, as usual.

I hope I translate it well. Because of this. I will gave you first a summary what I think you mean. So if I am not correct, please forgive me. And I hope you have the patience to make it clear to me.

What I understand from your posting is, without the atonement, Jesus couldn't save any people?

And why is His rising from the dead not necessarily a different level than the raising of Lazarus?

First I will say: Jesus said:"All power is given unto Me in Heaven and on earth."

So Jesus got the power to save. Because All power was given to Him.

But further: In Luc 19:8-10 And Zacchaeus stood and said unto the Lord, "Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken anything from any man by false accusation, I restore to him fourfold."

9 And Jesus said unto him, "This day is salvation come to this house, in that he also is a son of Abraham.

10 For the Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost."

I think those Scriptures let us see, that Jesus got the power to save, without the atonement. In our country atonement mean: the relationship between the human and God is restored. But the different is in my view: In the OT, you have to bring an offer, when you made a sin. The animal was carry the punishment for you. But now, Jesus was the Offer for all. So from my point of view, Jesus could save before the atonement. We can read it in the Bible that He did.

The second: In my point of view, the resurrection is from a different level: Because if it wasn't, Jesus wasn't the first who arise from the death. But the different is all of them died again. And his resurrection was is forever. If itsn't from a different level well Jesus didn't say .

I don't think salvation from physical and spiritual death would have been possible without his taking upon himself the sins of the world. Many Christians see the resurrection as the key soteriological event, but we see the atonement as that event. The resurrection is made possible through it.

As far as Christ's resurrection being on the same level as Lazarus', the fact that he did not die again was not something that was manifested to the apostles through any means other than Christ saying so (back to the word of one person). In addition, no one witnessed the event of his resurrection. They witnessed the result, which would have been indistinguishable without his own personal testimony of what it signified, which, again, comes back to the word of one person.

[Tsjoeva]

No, Oxford is cold and wet, as usual.

I don't think salvation from physical and spiritual death would have been possible without his taking upon himself the sins of the world. Many Christians see the resurrection as the key soteriological event, but we see the atonement as that event. The resurrection is made possible through it.

As far as Christ's resurrection being on the same level as Lazarus', the fact that he did not die again was not something that was manifested to the apostles through any means other than Christ saying so (back to the word of one person). In addition, no one witnessed the event of his resurrection. They witnessed the result, which would have been indistinguishable without his own personal testimony of what it signified, which, again, comes back to the word of one person.

Well here in Holland it is much to cold... we don't use like this 'artic' temperature..

I understand the different, what you mean. But for us, it start with the suffering, like is written in Isa 53. I think if people don't believe in the resurrection, they got a death faith, like the Apostle Paul said.

You quote

the fact that he did not die again was not something that was manifested to the apostles through any means other than Christ saying so (back to the word of one person)

I am not sure if I understand you correct.

What I understand from you is: You said: It is not for sure that Christ died again? (for the second time) Because you got one witness, namely Christ him self.

If I understand you not correct, I hope you will explain what you are meaning.

So you do agree, that Jesus is raised again. And you do believe that He went to heaven with Pentecostal? But you doubt that He isn't die again there? Because you got only the word of Christ?

Is that correct? Before I will respond on it. I hope you confirm what I think that you are saying?

[Hyrum Page]

You are mistaken. I am comparing the greatest event of the Christian dispensation (the resurrection of Jesus Christ) with the greatest event of the Restoration dispensation (the First Vision), according to LDS Church presidents and other known and respected teachers. This comparison is one that such leaders have explicitly and repeatedly made (bold emphasis added):

While you are right that the comparison has been made, I would suggest that the fairer comparison is between the resurrection and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. In the early LDS Church, the First Vision was little known and little discussed. It was instead the Book of Mormon that served as the foundation for the Restoration, and it appropriately had numerous witnesses to the existence of the plates and the translation process. The focus on the First Vision as the event marking the opening of the new dispensation postdates the foundation of the Church and even Joseph Smith's death.

[Smith]

The Atonement is not an historically investigable event, susceptible to human attestation, in the same sense as the First Vision or Paul's visionary experience.

This is a comparison of apples with astronauts.

Yet, I'm sure you would agree, it is THE most important event not only in Christianity but in the history of the whole world.

Now where does it sit if this "standard" of attestation is applied to it? From what I can see its just as no where as what the OP claims the LDS Church is.

[Vance]

You are mistaken. I am comparing the greatest event of the Christian dispensation (the resurrection of Jesus Christ) with the greatest event of the Restoration dispensation (the First Vision), according to LDS Church presidents and other known and respected teachers. This comparison is one that such leaders have explicitly and repeatedly made (bold emphasis added):

Still comparing Apples to Oranges. "Greatest event" doesn't necessarily mean "foundational event".

"The greatest event that has ever occurred in the world since the resurrection of the Son of God from the tomb, and his ascension on high, was the coming of the Father and of the Son to that boy Joseph Smith, to prepare the way for the laying of the foundation of his kingdom

[Zakuska]

In light of this quote:

"Joseph Smith's first vision stands today as the greatest event in world history since the birth, ministry, and resurrection of Jesus Christ." LDS.org (official website of the LDS Church), 2010.

One has to wonder why the Bible also speaks of these two great events... "through the Mouth of ALL the prophets since the world began."

Acts 3

19

[Lightbearer]

This OP brings this scripture to mind:

(Acts 13:40-41) "Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets; Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you."

I did not read thru the entire thread, but I think the greatest witness of all is being overlooked and that is the witness of the Holy Ghost. I can say as Alma did:

(Alma 5:45-46) "And this is not all. Do ye not suppose that I know of these things myself? Behold, I testify unto you that I do know that these things whereof I have spoken are true. And how do ye suppose that I know of their surety? Behold, I say unto you they are made known unto me by the Holy Spirit of God. Behold, I have fasted and prayed many days that I might know these things of myself. And now I do know of myself that they are true; for the Lord God hath made them manifest unto me by his Holy Spirit; and this is the spirit of revelation which is in me."

That is how I can say that I know the First Vision and all the other "foundational" events of the restoration did occur.

[Tsjoeva]

I don't think salvation from physical and spiritual death would have been possible without his taking upon himself the sins of the world. Many Christians see the resurrection as the key soteriological event, but we see the atonement as that event. The resurrection is made possible through it.

I think Jesus was possible to do, just like He said against Zacchaeus, or like the criminal at the cross. Everything was given to Him. And He did, what He saw the Father doing. We are saved by righteousness. But if you do not agree with me, can you gave me the Scriptual text, why you think this?

The meaning of the resurrection is important. It is the prove that all is happen. That He died for us, for our sin. The key soteriological is the suffering, death and resurrection. All three, not just one. And the resurrection is just the evidence from it.

The redemption is brought at the cross. Nobody will argue that. (like Mt 20:28 said, or Hebr. 9:12) Every Sunday we can celebrate the meal, like is written in 1Cor 11:26. We show the Lord death until He comes. He can only come, because He is raised.

Paul wrote in 1Cor 15:3-43 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received: how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

4 and that He was buried, and that He arose again the third day according to the Scriptures,

So it isn't important to make what is more important. (But I have to say: the Script is a witness too, because it is given by the inspiration of God)

And what tell Paul more?

in the same Chapter:

13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

14 and if Christ be not risen, then our preaching is vain, and your faith is also vain.

15 Yea, and we are found to be false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up, if so it be that the dead rise not.

16 For if the dead rise not, then is Christ not raised;

17 and if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.

19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

If there is no resurrection, because there is no prove of that... we are doing all for nothing. He said; We are false witnesses. And our faith is really empty. The faith is without power.