Multiple attestation lacking for the core LDS events

[Tsjoeva]

Act 17:4These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the Word with allreadiness of mind and searched the Scriptures daily to see whether those things were so.

If the revelation from Joseph Smith is a God given revelation: We can compare it with the Scripture. Because it will confess by the Bible. We can use this, to know if it is right or wrong.

[Vance]

Act 17:4These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the Word with allreadiness of mind and searched the Scriptures daily to see whether those things were so.

If the revelation from Joseph Smith is a God given revelation: We can compare it with the Scripture. Because it will confess by the Bible Scriptures. We can use this, to know if it is right or wrong.

There, fixed it for you.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And this was some time AFTER Moses first theophany on Mount Horeb. (see Exodus 3) So why aren't you comparing the Mount Horeb event with JS? You are comparing apples to oranges.

But not on Mount Horeb, the site of Moses' original theophany.

But not on Mount Horeb, the site of Moses' original theophany.

But not on Mount Horeb, the site of Moses' original theophany.

But not on Mount Horeb, the site of Moses' original theophany.

And what about the Mount Horeb event. How long AFTER the fact before Moses told anyone? It certainly wasn't "while it was happening and immediately after he came down."

And what about Moses' Mount Horeb experience. What doctrine was reveal then?

As was the Mount Horeb experience.

And what about the Mount Horeb experience?

Rather than continue, I think my point should be clear by now. You are comparing apples and oranges.

I noticed this same thing and commented on it. I also would like Rob to address Abraham. He is probably even more important toe the Jews than Moses is.

The facts are that the burning in bush incident Moses was alone, and that was the start of Moses prophet calling.

[maklelan]

Dan,

You wrote:

There

[maklelan]

I don

[maklelan]

Look at it this way: Why should I take seriously historical claims that rest on far weaker factual evidence than the core historical claims of Christianity that I already accept?

Because those claims you accept rest on equally weak evidence.

I wrote:

Since not everyone accepts the truth of this principle of multiple attestation, allow me to point out the biblical basis for it. We have in fact several affirmations of this principle across the two testaments (Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:15; Matt. 18:16; 2 Cor. 13:1; 1 Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28). Even Jesus did not go around saying,

[Droopy]

No one beside Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ in the Spring of 1820. But 73 men besides Moses saw God on Mount Sinai.

How do you know this?

No one knew exactly where Joseph Smith was when he saw God and Christ. But all of the Israelites waiting at the foot of Mount Sinai knew exactly where Moses was.

I fail to see the relevance of this to gaining a testimony that the Books of Moses are true...or that the First Vision occurred.

No one was close by Joseph Smith or had any way of knowing what he was doing when he saw God. But Joshua was close by Moses when he was on Mount Sinai receiving the stone tablets.

Again, no relevance.

Prior to the First Vision, no one had any reason to think that Joseph Smith was a prophet. But prior to Moses going up Mount Sinai, he had been God's instrument in bringing the ten plagues on Egypt, forcing Pharaoh to let the Israelites go, and then miraculously leading the Israelites across the Red Sea. By the time the Israelites reached Sinai, they knew Moses was a prophet.

Yet again, what is the relevance? Prior to Moses ministry in bringing the children of Egypt out of bondage, no one had any reason to think Moses was, or ever would be, a prophet either.

After the First Vision, no one knew about it for well over ten years. In fact, other than a couple of scribes, no one knew about it until the early 1840s, twenty years afterwards--despite hundreds of pages of revelations and teachings and sermons that Smith produced by that time. But all of the Israelites knew about Moses on Sinai while it was happening and immediately after he came down.

The numerous miraculous visions, revelations, angelic visitations etc. that occurred during the Church's Pentecostal period occurred in real time, as numerous accounts and diary entries from the period make clear. Further, Joseph explains the ten year delay as an aspect of his initial instructions as given by his angelic messenger (and again, what the relevance of a delay, of any period, may be to the divine authenticity of Joseph's claims I do not as yet understand. (Do not John's revaluations concern things that at that time were to occur over two thousand years in the future)?

Very little of Smith's teachings actually seem to derive from the First Vision. The official account informs us that Joseph learned at the time that all the churches were wrong. That is about the extent of the actual teaching that the account tells us Joseph derived from that encounter. But Moses came down from Mount Sinai with a substantial body of torah (law, instructions) from God, forming the core of God's covenant with Israel.

1. What does this have to do with the question of their divine authenticity?

2. We don't know what occurred during the First Vision save the few most salient points we have in the various versions.

The entirety of the First Vision was a purely private experience. But God enacted the Mosaic covenant through manifestations and revelations to which all of the Israelites were witnesses.

Well, all a LDS has to say to this is that God organized a Church through Joseph Smith which has grown into a growing, world wide church in two centuries and shows no signs of not moving forward in the future. How does this point support your case?

But although we have no direct independent evidence outside the Bible confirming the specific events on Mount Sinai, we have significant corroboration of the dramatic miracles of the Exodus in Egypt and the Red Sea.

What you have just claimed, in essence, is that although we have no direct, independent evidence for one Biblical story, we do have direct, independent evidence for another. As each of these stories are themselves material that appears within...the Bible, upon what criteria are you asserting that one Biblical story has confirmatory justification while another story within the same text has none? In a nutshell, how do you know that the OT is the word of God?

Mormons routinely confess that their faith in the First Vision and the divine beings who appeared to Joseph Smith rests on a special supernatural witness from God to their hearts. But Orthodox Jews and conservative Christians for thousands of years have believed in the God of Moses without requiring any special supernatural witness that the Exodus or Mount Sinai revelations occurred. I am unaware of any statement in the Bible referring to such "spiritual witnesses" concerning the Exodus or Sinai.

In which case, by your own admission here, Christianity is nothing more than another religious belief system, grounded, not in revelation, but in...belief.

Although Mormonism now regards the First Vision as foundational, LDS religion existed for several years, and could just as easily exist now, without any First Vision story, though not without some understanding of Joseph Smith as a prophet. (The visitations by Moroni and other celestial beings were understood to be the basis for that office during the first years of the LDS Church.) But Old Testament religion and Orthodox Judaism presuppose that God spoke to Moses; remove this idea and the Israelite/Jewish religious system completely falls apart.

1. The First Vision inaugurated, or opened, the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times, and confronted Joseph immediately with direct perceptions of concepts (God and Jesus Christ being separate, organized individuals) wholly at odds with traditional Christianity.

2. A religion that presupposes this our that is nothing more than, well,a religion. What are the confirmatory perceptions that differentiate the true religion of God from others?

As I have already pointed out, 73 other men in addition to Moses saw God on Mount Sinai. This point alone completely refutes your attempt to draw an equivalency between the First Vision and Mount Sinai.

As pointed out above, before, and here by other posters, the standards of evidence and analysis you are using are quite explicitly equally applicable, across a broad spectrum of their implications, to both Mormonism and a plethora of spiritual truth claims made in the OT and NT record.

I wrote:

Further, you have not attended to the salient criticism I posed in my first post on this thread, which to reiterate, comes down simply to: how can you trust the written records of the events you claim were witnessed and therefore legitimate? In other words, when you point out that x number of Israelites witnessed such and such, you source for this is...Moses. Upon what do you base the credibility of this individual, since it is only through him that we have the claims of what happened to him on Sinai, and only though him do we have the claimed support for his experience through independent witnesses?

Rob Bowman:

As noted above, we have independent evidence outside the Bible to support the basic storyline of the Exodus. Furthermore, as a Christian, I can accept the witness of Moses on the basis of the witness of Jesus Christ, whose authority was demonstrated by his well-attested resurrection from the dead.

Logical fallacies are beginning to plague this argument at length.

1. Rob accepts the witness of Moses.

2. He accepts the witness of Moses because he accepts the witness of Jesus Christ.

3. The authority of Christ, upon which this acceptance is grounded, appears in the witness of certain NT authors, including Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul.

4. Hence, the substantiation of the witness of Christ rests with the legitimacy of the texts written by the above authors as representing divinely inspired scripture.

5. How does Rob Bowman know, or why does he believe, that these texts are divinely inspired?

Rob seems always to return to the witnesses, even though, very clearly, the witnesses themselves appear only within the biblical texts making the initial divine truth claims.

In this logical cul-de-sac, we accept the witnesses as correct because we accept the Bible as the word of God. The belief that the Bible is the word of God, however, is dependent upon the witnesses. The witnesses, however, are themselves a part of the Biblical texts.

What aspect of this going around the proverbial Mulberry bush is that difficult to grasp I'm still not at all sure.

It is ironic that you claim I approach this subject as a secularist. Read through the responses from some of your LDS brethren. Some of them overtly put on their secularist and even atheist hats in order to argue that the evidence for the Resurrection is just as bad if not worse than the evidence for the First Vision.

To most, "LDS secularist" and "LDS atheist" would smack of oxymornity, just as "secularist Christian", which is why I wonder why your standards of analysis are drawn exclusively from the secular world and are wholly rejecting of spiritual experience, which the NT makes clear is the core of testimony (John, for example).

The point is that you are trapped within the text of the Bible without any means of knowing for yourself (other than a mental choice to accept Biblical religious claims) whether they are true independent of the Biblical texts themselves, and your attempts to substantiate them are with the tools of the secular historian, not the seeker of higher truth through higher perceptual means.

[Droopy]

There are, after all, people who accept the Book of Mormon as divinely revealed scripture but reject the First Vision. These people argue that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God but then, after he translated the Book of Mormon, overstepped God

[cksalmon]

Hi Loran:

You asked:

I'm just wondering, how do you know that this may not be the case with respect to Isaiha, Jeremiah, Danial, or Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, or James?

I'm just wondering why you would suggest as a possibility that folks who believed in the scriptures penned by (or penned for) [isaiah], Jeremiah, [Daniel], or Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, or James may have come to believe that those authors later produced false revelations and made false claims for themselves?

I can't think of any evidence that any folks did. Can you? Or, are you merely arguing from silence that it's possible that some did, and wonder why Bowman doesn't address the unargued, "unevidenced" hypothetical you've raised?

What do you intend your readers to conclude with regard to your question at this point? Whatever it might have been, I missed it.

cks

[Droopy]

Hi Loran:

I'm just wondering why you would suggest as a possibility that folks who believed in the scriptures penned by (or penned for) [isaiah], Jeremiah, [Daniel], or Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, or James may have come to believe that those authors later produced false revelations and made false claims for themselves?

I can't think of any evidence that any folks did. Can you? Or, are you merely arguing from silence that it's possible that some did, and wonder why Bowman doesn't address the unargued, "unevidenced" hypothetical you've raised?

What do you intend your readers to conclude with regard to your question at this point? Whatever it might have been, I missed it.

cks

This was Rob's initial point:

The only item on this list that I think one could take seriously is the Book of Mormon. If we can validate its claim to be ancient scriptures that Joseph Smith could only have translated by a supernatural gift, this would in turn validate him as a prophet of God. It would not, however, validate the First Vision. There are, after all, people who accept the Book of Mormon as divinely revealed scripture but reject the First Vision. These people argue that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God but then, after he translated the Book of Mormon, overstepped God

[Tsjoeva]

There, fixed it for you.

Hoi Vance,

I will make it more clear for you. The Bible(books) OT-NT. But please post with some respect svp. Reading your postings, sometimes I missed that. (and not only by you)

[Tsjoeva]

Act 17:4These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the Word with allreadiness of mind and searched the Scriptures daily to see whether those things were so.

If the revelation from Joseph Smith is a God given revelation: We can compare it with the Scripture. Because it will confess by the Bible. We can use this, to know if it is right or wrong.

In the Bible is written a several times a meeting with an angel (not mention an angel with a human body)

When I read History 1. scriptures.lds.org I got some questions.

In vs 16-17 we can read:

16 But, exerting all my powers to ^acall upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into ^bdespair and abandon myself to destruction

[Vance]

I will make it more clear for you. The Bible(books) OT-NT Scriptures. But please post with some respect svp. Reading your postings, sometimes I missed that. (and not only by you)

There! Fixed it for you.

I don't understand why you continue to twist what the scriptures ACTUALLY say.

Act 17:4These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the Word with allreadiness of mind and searched the Scriptures daily to see whether those things were so.

Notice that it didn't say "Bible" but "Scriptures". Now it could be argued that in this instance the word "scriptures" is referring to the portions of the OLD TESTAMENT then available to those in Thessalonica. And it could be argued that what they had was more extensive than what we currently have in the OT.

Either way, if you include the NT then you must include ALL of scripture. If you exclude some scripture then you must also exclude the NT, (to be consistent).

Perhaps I shouldn't expect consistency from you. After all I don't know you.

[Vance]

This angel Moroni was more impressive as the appearance of the two persons.

I don't see how you could come to this conclusion.

How do you get that "but his whole person was glorious beyond description," is more impressive than, "When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description".

Why don't you pay attention to what is ACTUALLY written, instead of only seeing what your prejudiced and bigoted eyes are showing you.

With all due respect added.

[USU78]

I will make it more clear for you. The Bible(books) OT-NT. But please post with some respect svp. Reading your postings, sometimes I missed that. (and not only by you)

Actually, there was no NT at that time, only the Tanakh + a few other books like Macc. 1 & 2, Enoch, and a few others. Those are the scriptures they would have been studying.

Definitely none of the Saul/Paul letters.

[volgadon]

In the Bible is written a several times a meeting with an angel (not mention an angel with a human body)

Jacob wrestled with air?

[Tsjoeva]

Jacob wrestled with air?

No Volgadon,

I mean, sometimes angels got a form of a man. And sometimes you see them in their glory. And sometimes you don't recognize it like an angel, because the appear like a human

[Vance]

No Volgadon,

I mean, sometimes angels got a form of a man. And sometimes you see them in their glory. And sometimes you don't recognize it like an angel, because the appear like a human

Perhaps you should consider this post.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/47604-are-we-angels/page__view__findpost__p__1208790963

I don't see a distinction between Angels and Human messengers. Nor do I find anything in scripture to indicate that Angels are a separate species from humans.

[Tsjoeva]

Actually, there was no NT at that time, only the Tanakh + a few other books like Macc. 1 & 2, Enoch, and a few others. Those are the scriptures they would have been studying.

Definitely none of the Saul/Paul letters.

I didn't say that..

Actually, the real TeNaCH in that time, was only the 22 books what we called the OT. The Septuaginta got more books. But not the TeNaCH.

My point of view is: If the revelation from Joseph Smith is true... we can compare it with the Bible. Simply like that. If Vance wanted that I use the word Scriptures (OT-NT), it is good to me too.

[USU78]

It speaks volumes about RB that he would assert a novel ad hoc taxonomy based upon gross distortions of the contents of the only written evidence available for that taxonomy . . . has both his taxonomic and his evidentiary errors pointed out in a manner that no reasonable person can contest, yet continues hide-bound in his outrageousness.

Why would anybody continue to engage the defender of the indefensible?

[Vance]

If Vance wanted that I use the word Scriptures (OT-NT), it is good to me too.

There, fixed it for you. Again.

[Tsjoeva]

I don't see how you could come to this conclusion.

How do you get that "but his whole person was glorious beyond description," is more impressive than, "When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description".

Why don't you pay attention to what is ACTUALLY written, instead of only seeing what your prejudiced and bigoted eyes are showing you.

With all due respect added.

Hoi Vance,

I hope that you mean the word respect. If you don't, don't use it.

Actually, if the 2 persons are so impressive... there is written only one little sentence. Nothing more. Just 7 words. And yes I read it.

He didn't say what He saw. Just 2 persons.

The first appearance was the 2 persons. Am I correct. So it was normally that JS used this 7 words. Totally no emotions. Only the 7 words.

The 2e appearance was the angel Moroni.. well it seem that person was more impressive as the first appearance. Because JS was afraid.

The description of the person was in a very detail. Now he looks impressive.

When I compare this with the book of Revelation, with John... well John was impressed by some angels.. But when He saw Jesus... He was as death for his feet.

A personal meeting with the Lord is not what you can say in 7 words. If you wanted to describe His majesty. (But that is my feeling about it)

[Vance]

Hoi Vance,

I hope that you mean the word respect. If you don't, don't use it.

Actually, if the 2 persons are so impressive... there is written only one little sentence. Nothing more. Just 7 words. And yes I read it.

He didn't say what He saw. Just 2 persons.

The first appearance was the 2 persons. Am I correct. So it was normally that JS used this 7 words. Totally no emotions. Only the 7 words.

The 2e appearance was the angel Moroni.. well it seem that person was more impressive as the first appearance. Because JS was afraid.

The description of the person was in a very detail. Now he looks impressive.

When I compare this with the book of Revelation, with John... well John was impressed by some angels.. But when He saw Jesus... He was as death for his feet.

A personal meeting with the Lord is not what you can say in 7 words. If you wanted to describe His majesty. (But that is my feeling about it)

So, you are ASSUMING that "describ(ing) His majasty" must be the primary objective in any theophany report?

And that, rather than the actual message delivered?

Also, it is interesting to know that you can read the thoughts and intentions of the dead. Does the exercise of this talent provide you with an ample income?

[Zakuska]

Rob has forgotten of an awful lot of Prophets who's calling only have a single attestation.

Jonah

Obadiah

etc. etc.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I, personally, am wondering how someone with so fast-and-loose a connection with the facts was granted pundit status.

Isn't "pundit" usually reserved for people with at least a mustard seed's measure of credibility?

I think he has a PHD or something like that. He was invited here by Dan McClellan.

I don't agree with Rob's shake down of things, but I would say that we treat Rob with a little bit more respect. As he is our guest.

I don't nanny all that often but I thought this deserved a little clarification and attention.