Witness For The Plates Vs. Witnesses For Resurrection

[Hamilton Porter]

After reading evangelical comparisons of the two, I think something is missing from the discussion.

Joseph Smith lived in a far more technologically advanced time. He had signed afadavits.

We know that the NT records are the best from the period. And the evidence for the resurrection is probably somewhere near the upper bound of best from that period.

But still. Ignorant peasants can easily get excited about rumors of an empty tomb, and thereby it becomes "public knowledge." You can't say that about witnesses for the plates.

[canard78]

What discussion? I wasn't aware that they were in competition.

It's a little unfair to the disciples to call them 'ignorant peasants'

[The Nehor]

It's a little unfair to the disciples to call them 'ignorant peasants'

It is a modern conceit. The idea that everyone in the past was stupid and gullible whereas now we see through that kind of thing is an ego gratifying one.

[volgadon]

You can show how relying on someone's word that a whole bunch of people saw Christ is hearsay, but to claim that they were ignorant peasants because they weren't technologically advanced enough to have signed affidavits is plain silly.

[Saints Alive]

I don't know that we can use witnesses as proof of the validity of either event. There were 11 witnesses of the BoM and how may thousands of people have seen UFOs or bigfoot? To be quite honest I think HF set it up so that we wouldn't have concrete evidence to believe, I think he wants to see if we will trust the HG dispite physical evidence and "science" that would tell us not to believe.

[Hamilton Porter]

I don't know that we can use witnesses as proof of the validity of either event. There were 11 witnesses of the BoM and how may thousands of people have seen UFOs or bigfoot? To be quite honest I think HF set it up so that we wouldn't have concrete evidence to believe, I think he wants to see if we will trust the HG dispite physical evidence and "science" that would tell us not to believe.

Is your name Ed Decker by any chance?

This doesn't contribute a thing. Stop it.

[Saints Alive]

Is your name Ed Decker by any chance?

Why do you say that? My only point was that whitenesses to either the BoM or the resurrection are not the ultimate proof of validity.

[why me]

After reading evangelical comparisons of the two, I think something is missing from the discussion.

Joseph Smith lived in a far more technologically advanced time. He had signed afadavits.

We know that the NT records are the best from the period. And the evidence for the resurrection is probably somewhere near the upper bound of best from that period.

But still. Ignorant peasants can easily get excited about rumors of an empty tomb, and thereby it becomes "public knowledge." You can't say that about witnesses for the plates.

The NT is based on faith. We have no other record that the events in the gospels actually happened. We have no proof whatever. It would be wonderful to uncover a written record from a source that confirms the stories in the gospels. But we haven't found such a document yet. So, faith is needed.

Also, since miracles were committed according to the gospels, it is interesting that there is no record of them outside the bible.

With the witnesses we have 11 people who saw the plates. Three testified to seeing the angel with the plates and 8 testified to handling them. No one retracted their testimonies. But...we still need faith.

[why me]

I don't know that we can use witnesses as proof of the validity of either event. There were 11 witnesses of the BoM and how may thousands of people have seen UFOs or bigfoot? To be quite honest I think HF set it up so that we wouldn't have concrete evidence to believe, I think he wants to see if we will trust the HG dispite physical evidence and "science" that would tell us not to believe.

This is common among critics. However the comparisons do not work. We have 11 people who claimed to have seen the plates as a group experience. The question is not in a comparison to bigfoot but to whether or not they can be trusted. Many have given their testimony on their deathbed that it happened. Why? Because either they are psychopathic liars or they actually had an experience. We need to remember that these men who gave their deathbed testimonies either believed that there was no god and saw no repercussions upon death with their lie or they decided to confirm their experience in hope that it will help ease their case before god.

[why me]

Why do you say that? My only point was that whitenesses to either the BoM or the resurrection are not the ultimate proof of validity.

We have no proof of validity of anything religious. It all takes faith, unfortunately. However, we can look at the witnesses objectively and ask: why would they lie throughout their lives and even on their deathbeds?

[Hamilton Porter]

Every time we try to discuss reason and evidence on this board people object. What the hades.

[The Nehor]

Every time we try to discuss reason and evidence on this board people object. What the hades.

When were we discussing reason? I assumed this was all madness when it was suggested in the OP that affadavits are a modern technological invention and not something that has been around since writing began. Read the Book of Mormon. The writers are continually stating that what they are saying is true and even witnessing as to how they know it is true. You will find similar approaches to writing in every stage of history. Many Egyptian autobiographies are written like affadavits testifying to the truth (and righteousness) of the writer's life. The gospels are affadavits. Paul tells the story of his conversion and emphasizes that the account is true.

[pogi]

Every time we try to discuss reason and evidence on this board people object. What the hades.

What's your reason, because your evidence is weak?

[RobertAC]

Book of Mormon plates versus Jesus' Resurrection? Would this be like Godzilla versus Mothra?

Just kidding.

The problem debating, and then comparing, the historical accuracy of each fantastic event is that Joseph Smith lived in a time where there are contemporary written records about him, whereas there are none of Jesus. In other words, if there was no New Testament, there would be no writing from at or near Jesus' time attesting to his existence. He would have simply disappeared into history.

In contrast, there are writings about Joseph Smith that are outside of his religious writings that can confirm his existence and some of the key details of his life, including the discovery of the Book of Mormon. The plates are documented, at least in part, from contemporary records outside of religious text.

The lives of contemporary religious leaders will always be under more scrutiny because there are means and methods to both substantiate, or debunk, their claimed history. There is no similar method to substantiate, or debunk, the histories of ancient religious leaders such as Jesus.

[Rob Bowman]

Saints Alive,

Okay, after keeping myself out of these discussions for a while, I'm game to discuss this issue. You wrote:

I don't know that we can use witnesses as proof of the validity of either event. There were 11 witnesses of the BoM and how may thousands of people have seen UFOs or bigfoot? To be quite honest I think HF set it up so that we wouldn't have concrete evidence to believe, I think he wants to see if we will trust the HG dispite physical evidence and "science" that would tell us not to believe.

If Heavenly Father had wanted to see if you would accept the Book of Mormon despite the physical evidence, there would be no point to the testimonies of the eleven witnesses. The whole point of those testimonies was to provide such evidence. The question is whether that evidence is good evidence, not whether it constitutes scientific "proof" that the Book of Mormon is true. Granted that Mormons are not expected to accept the Book of Mormon on the strength of those eleven witnesses' testimonies alone, the testimonies are supposed to show that the Book of Mormon has some intellectual credibility. Again, the question is whether they succeed in that regard.

More later....

[Rob Bowman]

Hamilton,

You wrote:

After reading evangelical comparisons of the two, I think something is missing from the discussion.

Joseph Smith lived in a far more technologically advanced time. He had signed afadavits.

We know that the NT records are the best from the period. And the evidence for the resurrection is probably somewhere near the upper bound of best from that period.

But still. Ignorant peasants can easily get excited about rumors of an empty tomb, and thereby it becomes "public knowledge." You can't say that about witnesses for the plates.

A number of objections to your argument come to mind.

• Martin Harris got "excited" enough about the gold plates to finance their "translation" despite not having even seen them, even though his friend Joseph claimed he had them immediately at hand.
  
• Other individuals lent support to Joseph Smith without seeing the plates. It was nearly two years after Joseph supposedly obtained the plates before he allowed anyone to see them. Imagine the apostles running around for eighteen months proclaiming that Jesus had risen from the dead even though only Peter had reported having seen the risen Jesus.
  
• The apostle Paul, before his conversion, was an implacable opponent of Christianity, hardly given to excitement over the resurrection story except in the form of excitedly hunting down Christians to persecute them.
  
• James the Lord's brother also appears to have been skeptical of Jesus until after seeing him risen from the dead.
  
• The Gospels report that the disciples were incredulous at the claim that Jesus had risen from the dead, until they were shamed into believing it by his appearance to them. That doesn't fit your model--but it is what one would expect.
  

One could probably go on with additional objections, but these ought to get the ball rolling.

[Hamilton Porter]

Hamilton,

You wrote:

A number of objections to your argument come to mind.

• Martin Harris got "excited" enough about the gold plates to finance their "translation" despite not having even seen them, even though his friend Joseph claimed he had them immediately at hand.
  
• Other individuals lent support to Joseph Smith without seeing the plates. It was nearly two years after Joseph supposedly obtained the plates before he allowed anyone to see them. Imagine the apostles running around for eighteen months proclaiming that Jesus had risen from the dead even though only Peter had reported having seen the risen Jesus.
  
• The apostle Paul, before his conversion, was an implacable opponent of Christianity, hardly given to excitement over the resurrection story except in the form of excitedly hunting down Christians to persecute them.
  
• James the Lord's brother also appears to have been skeptical of Jesus until after seeing him risen from the dead.
  
• The Gospels report that the disciples were incredulous at the claim that Jesus had risen from the dead, until they were shamed into believing it by his appearance to them. That doesn't fit your model--but it is what one would expect.
  

One could probably go on with additional objections, but these ought to get the ball rolling.

Martin Harris wasn't living in a technologically backwards, pre-rational age. Ya see, ya see? The devil put dem dinosaur bones in the ground to tempt us into believing in evolution. Ya see?

[cesc101]

The devil put dem dinosaur bones in the ground to tempt us into believing in evolution. Ya see?

as weird as that may sound, am lost trying to figure out how that relates to the topic. any help?!

[pogi]

Ya see, ya see? Ya see?

What is it i am looking at?

[Nathair/|\]

For what it's worth, I doubt I'd believe in Christ as more than one tribal deity among many were it not for the Book of Mormon.

[The Nehor]

Martin Harris wasn't living in a technologically backwards, pre-rational age. Ya see, ya see? The devil put dem dinosaur bones in the ground to tempt us into believing in evolution. Ya see?

Yeah......those ages before rationality were rough.

[The Nehor]

What is it i am looking at?

I am not a doctor but I do work a lot in the study of how certain substances impair normal brain activity and this experience gives me a few hunches as to what we are looking at.

[Rob Bowman]

Hamilton wrote:

Martin Harris wasn't living in a technologically backwards, pre-rational age. Ya see, ya see? The devil put dem dinosaur bones in the ground to tempt us into believing in evolution. Ya see?

This retort was just so clever that I am unable to refute it, not having a clue as to its point.

[canard78]

This is common among critics. However the comparisons do not work. We have 11 people who claimed to have seen the plates as a group experience. The question is not in a comparison to bigfoot but to whether or not they can be trusted. Many have given their testimony on their deathbed that it happened. Why? Because either they are psychopathic liars or they actually had an experience. We need to remember that these men who gave their deathbed testimonies either believed that there was no god and saw no repercussions upon death with their lie or they decided to confirm their experience in hope that it will help ease their case before god.

I'm going to have to go looking for it again, but a very interesting NAMI article gave an account of Martin Harris' last few months in Utah. His last known public testimony is a strange, rambling, vague list of opinions and the end is missing. The deathbed affirmation was far more pithy and succinct and witnessed & transcribed by a small group of people.

That doesn't invalidate his testimony, but I don't believe in the BoM because of a second hand transcription of what he said on his deathbed (particularly when it bears little resemblance to the last public testimony), instead I beleive the BoM because of a personal, spiritual experience. I find the 'evidence' and 'witnesses' for the BoM no more convincing than for the NT accounts. I guess God's not looking for us to follow evidence.

[mathonihah]

... the testimonies are supposed to show that the Book of Mormon has some intellectual credibility. Again, the question is whether they succeed in that regard.

The witnesses serve two important purposes in the divine scheme of things: (1) They fulfil the scriptural requirement that "in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall all things be established". (2) They are the Lord's answer to unbelievers in judgment day; they cannot claim immunity from judgment on the grounds that they had no evidence.