Witness For The Plates Vs. Witnesses For Resurrection

[mathonihah]

It is when the editing is misleading. In this case it is misleading because it makes it appear to the reader that Joseph knew in 1829 that he had something called the Urim and Thummim. As I have shown, this is not the case. The name was actually suggested by one of Joseph's followers, not something he received by divine revelation.

There are other even more egregious examples of misleading editing of Joseph's revelations. The best example is the supposed earliest revelation concerning the appearances of John the Baptist and of Peter, James, and John to bestow the priesthood orders on Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in D&C 27:5-13, a three-hundred word text added in 1835 to what was Book of Commandments 28 by being literally spliced into the middle of a sentence. By inserting this material into that earlier text Joseph back-dated to 1830 his revelation concerning these supposed events of 1829, even though no one had ever heard of these events or of Joseph and Oliver having these priesthood orders in 1830 or even for the following three years or so. Joseph not only inserted this three-hundred word text into the middle of a sentence, he did so in a revelation that had nothing to do with priesthood or visitations; it was originally a "revelation" not to buy wine for the sacrament!

If you genuinely think that you are onto something, the answer is to write a paper or article, and present your evidence properly resourced and documented, so it can be examined carefully, and (if need be) responded to. I don't have all the relevant fact at my fingertips to be able to do that right now, and I am not particularly interested in investing the time required to acquire it at the present time.

[Rob Bowman]

Storm Rider,

Thanks for your gracious post. In my experience online forums bring out the worst in some of us. When I have had the opportunity to meet Mormon apologists and scholars face to face the discussions have nearly always been cordial and even warm (I can think of only one exception).

Merry Christmas to you.

This is a statement that I firmly support; it just surprises me that you are saying it. Context and priority of some beliefs should always be taken into consideration. It is like talking about Kolob in LDS teaching. It has virtually no significance, but tell me how often it is talked about as if it is a core belief/doctrine. What is the amount of time Joseph was hired by others to hunt for treasure and how much that incredibly small amount of time is focused on by critics? Rob, we are men of faith and we both believe firmly in the value and importance of truth; in brief, we both belief that truth is eternal. The great thing is that we both have focused our lives on following Jesus Christ and standing as a witness for him. Our expressions of our discipleship are very different, but I hope that God is guiding all who call upon him. It is my prayer that this Christmas season will be a time of peace and joy for you, your family, and for all those with whom you come in contact. Never let your zeal for knowing truth become so important that you cannot see the wayfarer beside the road of life that simply needs a hand of fellowship. The good Samaritan took the time when all the supposed righteous men passed him by. May we each follow his example, a man not of the House of Israel, but one that lived the Way of the Master.

[canard78]

If you genuinely think that you are onto something, the answer is to write a paper or article, and present your evidence properly resourced and documented, so it can be examined carefully, and (if need be) responded to. I don't have all the relevant fact at my fingertips to be able to do that right now, and I am not particularly interested in investing the time required to acquire it at the present time.

Isn't this board the very place where people are trying to thrash out issues such as this? Why go through the hassle of publishing in a journal when you can exchange ideas here? It's a live conversation and exploration of the issues.

Aren't you really saying that Rob presents a compelling case and you're having trouble answering it? Why not challengehis argument, not attack the publishing platform.

If you weren't interested in debating the issue on the thread why are you participating at all?

[Calm]

I hope that quoting in a different thread is ok by board rules. I'd welcome your perspectives.

From what I've seen (not a mod), it is okay as long as the thread isn't locked and sometimes if it is a offtopic quote to what was the topic of the locked thread. Lots of people quote from a thread to start a new thread to avoid drawing the old thread off topic too much.

[mathonihah]

I'll make this really easy for you. Forget about everything else and answer this simple question: Does your belief that the witnesses to the gold plates signed the original documents of the two "Testimonies" make the evidence for the gold plates in your eyes in some way superior to the evidence for the resurrection from the testimonies of the apostles? That was your original claim. Do you stand by it?

I think that the evidence for the gold plates is in some way superior to that of the resurrection because the latter event (and its testimonies) is buried deeper in past history, and the testimonies are easier to question or deny. The New Testsment has been the subject of scholarly investigation to a far greater extent, and for a much longer period of time than the events surrounding the coming forth of the Book of Mormon has been; and many of these scholars have not believed, and still do not believe the miraculous stories contained therin, including the story of the resurrection. They consider them to be fables. But there is no scholar who questions the existence of the BoM witnesses as real people who bore such testimonies. They may not believe their testimonies. They may think that they made it up, or that they were duped; but they wouldn't question that they were real people who bore those testimonies. The witnesses to the resurrection in the NT are not as "credible" (historically, not spiritually) as the witnesses to the gold plates in that sense of the term. Ultimately, neither testimonies are truly "believable" without the witness of the Holy Ghost. But putting that aside for the moment, I would say the witnesses to the gold plates are more credible historically than the witnesses to the resurrection, because of its closer proximity in time, and greater availability of documentary evidence.

Edited December 23, 2012 by mathonihah

[Calm]

They consider them to be fables. But there is no scholar who questions the existence of the BoM witnesses as real people who bore such testimonies. They may not believe their testimonies. They may think that they made it up, or that they were duped; but they wouldn't question that they were real people who bore those testimonies.

This is more or less what I was trying to make a point of earlier. The Biblical witnesses cannot very easily be established as existing separately from the Bible or at most from any evidence existing outside of the faith community the Bible is about, the 11 witnessess can be including some in direct opposition. That independent existence may not have bearing on whether or not that means their testimonies are true, but it does establish one point where one can point to the 11 and say "yes, we know" but for the ressurrection witnesses one can manage a "maybe, don't have enough documentation to know for sure".

For a time at least, the 11 were able to be 'cross examined' on their claims and we have records that list people that can be identified as really existing in a certain time and place in independent records, etc. doing that cross examining, allowing us to view the witnesses of the BoM in a somewhat different way than the witnesses for the resurrection that perhaps at one time were available for crossexamining, but at a much, much more distant time from our own and such records only exist in the same record as the resurrection itself thus such cross examinations are of much more limited value than that available today which then reflexs on the testimonies themselves.

[canard78]

From what I've seen (not a mod), it is okay as long as the thread isn't locked and sometimes if it is a offtopic quote to what was the topic of the locked thread. Lots of people quote from a thread to start a new thread to avoid drawing the old thread off topic too much.

Cool, thanks for letting me know. If you've any perspective on the potential Mitchill influence I'd welcome your (always balanced) input.

[canard78]

This is more or less what I was trying to make a point of earlier. The Biblical witnesses cannot very easily be established as existing separately from the Bible or at most from any evidence existing outside of the faith community the Bible is about, the 11 witnessess can be including some in direct opposition. That independent existence may not have bearing on whether or not that means their testimonies are true, but it does establish one point where one can point to the 11 and say "yes, we know" but for the ressurrection witnesses one can manage a "maybe, don't have enough documentation to know for sure".

For a time at least, the 11 were able to be 'cross examined' on their claims and we have records that list people that can be identified as really existing in a certain time and place in independent records, etc. doing that cross examining, allowing us to view the witnesses of the BoM in a somewhat different way than the witnesses for the resurrection that perhaps at one time were available for crossexamining, but at a much, much more distant time from our own and such records only exist in the same record as the resurrection itself thus such cross examinations are of much more limited value than that available today which then reflexs on the testimonies themselves.

Valid points. I guess having a signed original becomes less important when you have the written accounts of them confirming their testimonies.

A couple of questions from that:

- are we saying that there's no signed original of the testimonies?

- Is there no evidence (beyond the Bible/Apocrypha) that a man called Simon Peter or Paul/Saul actually existed. Did Paul audience with Agrippa only get documented in Acts?

[thesometimesaint]

To the best of my knowledge there is no outside of the Bible evidence for Simon Peter or for Saul/Paul.

[Rob Bowman]

mathonihah,

After seeing your posts #226 and #230, I think canard78's comment on the former has some merit. I myself am now curious what criteria you use to determine which posts of mine are appropriate for discussion in this venue and which are not.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Saints Alive,

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

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....

Can't wait...did you ever answer my question about how the 3 never denied their testimony, just as the early Apostles...well 11 anyway.

[mathonihah]

mathonihah,

After seeing your posts #226 and #230, I think canard78's comment on the former has some merit. I myself am now curious what criteria you use to determine which posts of mine are appropriate for discussion in this venue and which are not.

There are many factors that may determine whether I reply to a particular post or not, and most of it is not related to the character of the person writing the post. Canard78's comment on my post #226 had absolutely no merit at all, which is why I decided not to reply to it.

Edited December 24, 2012 by mathonihah

[Rob Bowman]

mathonihah,

That was some non-answer. The question was not why you didn't respond to canard78's post. The issue is why you refused to answer one of my posts but chose to answer another one. Your refusal of the first gave no indication that you thought my post "had absolutely no merit at all."

There are many factors that may determine whether I reply to a particular post or not, and most of it is not related to the character of the person writing the post. Canard78's comment on my post #226 had absolutely no merit at all, which is why I decided not to reply to it.

[Rob Bowman]

canard78,

You asked:

A couple of questions from that:

- are we saying that there's no signed original of the testimonies?

Good luck getting a straight answer to that question.

Your next question:

- Is there no evidence (beyond the Bible/Apocrypha) that a man called Simon Peter or Paul/Saul actually existed. Did Paul audience with Agrippa only get documented in Acts?

No, but that bothers no historian, even skeptical atheist historians. If I were to argue "Peter and Paul were real people because the Bible, which is the word of God, says so," a skeptic could rightly complain that I was appealing to the Bible's supposed inspiration to settle a historical question. However, I don't do that, and there is no need to do that. Historians of all religious and non-religious backgrounds accept the historical existence of Peter and Paul because the NT writings, considered simply as documents and not necessarily as divinely inspired, provide solid historical testimony to their existence, and there is no good reason to doubt their existence. For example, we have thirteen epistles that name Paul as their author, and even skeptical scholars generally admit that seven of them must be deemed authentic. It would frankly be ridiculous to doubt Paul's existence, and again serious historians, even atheist ones, don't. In turn Paul's undisputed epistles attest to the historical existence of Peter; the specifics in Galatians are especially difficult to explain away if Peter didn't really exist. For example, Paul discusses an incident in which he had a disagreement with Peter -- a strange story to tell the Galatians if Peter didn't even exist.

[Rob Bowman]

Pa Pa,

You asked:

Can't wait...did you ever answer my question about how the 3 never denied their testimony, just as the early Apostles...well 11 anyway.

Does this matter? If it had turned out that one of the three had denied his testimony, would that have any bearing at all on the question of the truth of that testimony from your point of view? There's no point in arguing over something unless it matters.

[mathonihah]

No, but that bothers no historian, even skeptical atheist historians. If I were to argue "Peter and Paul were real people because the Bible, which is the word of God, says so," a skeptic could rightly complain that I was appealing to the Bible's supposed inspiration to settle a historical question. However, I don't do that, and there is no need to do that. Historians of all religious and non-religious backgrounds accept the historical existence of Peter and Paul because the NT writings, considered simply as documents and not necessarily as divinely inspired, provide solid historical testimony to their existence, and there is no good reason to doubt their existence. For example, we have thirteen epistles that name Paul as their author, and even skeptical scholars generally admit that seven of them must be deemed authentic. It would frankly be ridiculous to doubt Paul's existence, and again serious historians, even atheist ones, don't. In turn Paul's undisputed epistles attest to the historical existence of Peter; the specifics in Galatians are especially difficult to explain away if Peter didn't really exist. For example, Paul discusses an incident in which he had a disagreement with Peter -- a strange story to tell the Galatians if Peter didn't even exist.

It is not so much a question of whether Peter and Paul existed as real people or not, but of whether statements such as these are authentic and credible or not?

“After these things Jesus shewed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias; and on this wise shewed he himself.” (John 21:1)

“This is now the third time that Jesus shewed himself to his disciples, after that he was risen from the dead.” (John 21:14)

“To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God;” (Acts 1:3)

“And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve

“After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

“After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

“And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.” (1 Cor. 15:5–8 )

Edited December 24, 2012 by mathonihah

[Rob Bowman]

mathonihah,

And your point is...?

Someone asked a question. I answered it. You want to change the question. Do you have something against straight answers to questions that are actually asked?

It is not so much a question of whether Peter and Paul existed as real people or not, but of whether statements such as these are authentic and credible or not?

“After these things Jesus shewed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias; and on this wise shewed he himself.” (John 21:1)

“This is now the third time that Jesus shewed himself to his disciples, after that he was risen from the dead.” (John 21:14)

“To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God;” (Acts 1:3)

“And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve

“After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

“After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

“And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.” (1 Cor. 15:5–8 )

[mfbukowski]

No matter how you cut it, you still have a story of a man coming back from the dead in writings thousands of years old. There are numerous accounts of similar claims in many religions including Greek mythology

Ancient Greek religion

In ancient Greek religion, a number of men and women were made physically immortal as they were resurrected from the dead. Asclepius was killed by Zeus, only to be resurrected and transformed into a major deity. Achilles, after being killed, was snatched from his funeral pyre by his divine mother Thetis and resurrected, brought to an immortal existence in either Leuce, Elysian plains or the Islands of the Blessed. Memnon, who was killed by Achilles, seems to have a received a similar fate. Alcmene, Castor, Heracles, and Melicertes, were also among the figures sometimes considered to have been resurrected to physical immortality. According to Herodotus's Histories, the seventh century BC sage Aristeas of Proconnesus was first found dead, after which his body disappeared from a locked room. Later he found not only to have been resurrected but to have gained immortality.

Many other figures, like a great part of those who fought in the Trojan and Theban wars, Menelaus, and the historical pugilist Cleomedes of Astupalaea, were also believed to have been made physically immortal, but without having died in the first place. Indeed, in Greek religion, immortality originally always included an eternal union of body and soul. The philosophical idea of an immortal soul was a later invention, which, although influential, never had a breakthrough in the Greek world. As may be witnessed even into the Christian era, not least by the complaints of various philosophers over popular beliefs, traditional Greek believers maintained the conviction that certain individuals were resurrected from the dead and made physically immortal and that for the rest of us, we could only look forward to an existence as disembodied and dead souls.^[9]

This traditional religious belief in physical immortality was generally denied by the Greek philosophers. Writing his Lives of Illustrious Men (Parallel Lives) in the first century CE, the Middle Platonic philosopher Plutarch's chapter on Romulus gave an account of his mysterious disappearance and subsequent deification, comparing it to traditional Greek beliefs such as the resurrection and physical immortalization of Alcmene and Aristeas the Proconnesian, "for they say Aristeas died in a fuller's work-shop, and his friends coming to look for him, found his body vanished; and that some presently after, coming from abroad, said they met him traveling towards Croton." Plutarch openly scorned such beliefs held in traditional ancient Greek religion, writing, "many such improbabilities do your fabulous writers relate, deifying creatures naturally mortal."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection

There is absolutely no rational reason to believe any of these accounts.

The only reason a rational individual would live their lives believing such things and acting on such beliefs is if God had somehow revealed such a thing to them personally. No rational, educated person would believe such things literlly occurred based on accounts written thousands of years ago in religious writings in contradiction of modern science or our own personal experience- people just do not come back from the dead.

Yet of course we have individual testimonies that such actually happened in the case of Jesus the Christ- not because of any evidence in any ancient book, but because Gold himself has chosen to testify to us that such is the case.

[mathonihah]

That was some non-answer. The question was not why you didn't respond to canard78's post. The issue is why you refused to answer one of my posts but chose to answer another one. Your refusal of the first gave no indication that you thought my post "had absolutely no merit at all."

Which post were you referring to? I thought I did reply to your post.

And your point is...?

Someone asked a question. I answered it. You want to change the question. Do you have something against straight answers to questions that are actually asked?

This is a typical example of a post that has no merit at all, and therefore is not worth replying to.

Edited December 24, 2012 by mathonihah

[canard78]

There are many factors that may determine whether I reply to a particular post or not, and most of it is not related to the character of the person writing the post. Canard78's comment on my post #226 had absolutely no merit at all, which is why I decided not to reply to it.

I didn't realise I was held in such high regard. You made a dismissive comment about Rob's argument needing to be made in peer reviewed papers essentially said "not playing" when you're in the very playground where the game is being played.

I'd repeat, why come to the playground and then complain that Rob is playing the game designed for the playground?

[canard78]

Pa Pa,

You asked:

Does this matter? If it had turned out that one of the three had denied his testimony, would that have any bearing at all on the question of the truth of that testimony from your point of view? There's no point in arguing over something unless it matters.

Aren't you at risk of dodging the questions now? You've got to play fair too.

It would matter to a great deal of people. I think having the witnesses at least raised the stakes for Joseph. If just one of them had come out and said "actually, I made it up, there were no plates" then it would have been a big blow at the time and today. I even question whether there would have been a 'today' if one or two of the key witnesses had come out and said "we made it all up."

Imagine if Oliver Cowdery had written to his children on his deathbed and said "there were no plates, Joseph, Martin, Sidney and I say around the table late into the night with 40-50 books from around the world, piecing together a new commentary of Christianity. We initially did it with the best of intentions because we wanted to reduce the confusion in the revival era of religion in USA. We decided to make it mystical and historical because, hey, otherwise no-one would have payed any attention to us. As it was, loads of people were interested in the origins of the Indians back then, and several people had promoted a Hebrew-Indian theory, so we figured it would get buy-in. It's true some of us got a little carried away later in life and extended the theology beyond the realms of decency... but it was all meant with the best of intentions and I hope you'll forgive me."

If you had that letter... are you saying it would really make no difference to the majority of Mormons? If one of the 3 witnesses had done such a thing publicly and while still living and was cross-examined by an independent third party/newspaper, it's very likely the church would not be where it is today. As such, I'd suggest it's a reasonable question that PaPa asks.

As mentioned I consider the evidence of the witnesses' non-denial only evidence of them never denying they saw the plates. I don't consider it anything much further than that. It could still have been a big fraud and cover up and all of them stayed quiet. My testimony is based on a spiritual witness. But if one of the 3 had come out and denied all, I may never had got to the point of seeking a spiritual witness. Equally, if I found out that there was conclusive evidence of a fraud (which there isn't) I could also spend time seriously questioning the source of my 'spiritual witness.'

The reality is that even inconclusive evidence against the historicity is enough to shake faith. If a witness was discovered to have said denied seeing the plates, then it would shake the faith of many, many more!

[Vance]

No, but that bothers no historian, even skeptical atheist historians.

LOL!!!!

And yet to the hysterical evangelical anti-mormon, hand written copies of LDS documents must be questioned at every step posssible. While accepting without question hand written copies of older, less verifiable documents.

Nice double standard you got going there.

If I were to argue "Peter and Paul were real people because the Bible, which is the word of God, says so," a skeptic could rightly complain that I was appealing to the Bible's supposed inspiration to settle a historical question.

Yet, you accept certain second hand "claims" about witnesses to the resurrection while rejecting first hand witnesses to the gold plates.

Nice double standard you got going there.

However, I don't do that, and there is no need to do that. Historians of all religious and non-religious backgrounds accept the historical existence of Peter and Paul because the NT writings, considered simply as documents and not necessarily as divinely inspired, provide solid historical testimony to their existence, and there is no good reason to doubt their existence.

And yet, you doubt the existence of certain signitures, even though there is both better quality and quantity of evidence that they did exist.

Nice double standard you got going there.

For example, we have thirteen epistles that name Paul as their author,

SIDE NOTE: Notice that Paul claimed authorship and that he did NOT attribute them to "God breathed".

and even skeptical scholars generally admit that seven of them must be deemed authentic.

Which says NOTHING about the contents being accurate.

It would frankly be ridiculous to doubt Paul's existence, and again serious historians, even atheist ones, don't.

Based only on Paul's writings. Yet the anti-Mormon ridiculously doubts the one time existence of certain signitures. LOL!!!

In turn Paul's undisputed epistles attest to the historical existence of Peter; the specifics in Galatians are especially difficult to explain away if Peter didn't really exist.

Again, just because an individual named Paul unquestioningly wrote some letters doesn't mean that the contents of those letters are accurate.

Nice double standard you got going there.

For example, Paul discusses an incident in which he had a disagreement with Peter -- a strange story to tell the Galatians if Peter didn't even exist.

But perhap it was just the affect of a frenzied mind. Without a second, firsthand, independent witness to the events described to verify them, perhaps Paul just made them up to make himself look good.

[Vance]

I think having the witnesses at least raised the stakes for Joseph. If just one of them had come out and said "actually, I made it up, there were no plates" then it would have been a big blow at the time and today. I even question whether there would have been a 'today' if one or two of the key witnesses had come out and said "we made it all up."

Many of the witnesses left the church (and Joseph Smith's society) because the took offense against him for one reason or another. Such "offended" individuals would have all the reason in the world to "expose" any and all of any fraudulent actions of JS, if there were any. Yet, they remained steadfast to their witness to the gold plates. Yet Peter denied the Christ three times, and all is forgive.

The double standards of the anti-mormons are indeed laughable.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Vance

[cdowis]

If anyone says something in response that is serious, I'll be happy to reply. Meanwhile, I anticipate some gnashing of teeth at the above comment. Enjoy yourselves.

I must have missed your post. I asked questions about your assumptions, specifically whether you think that modern revelation in addition to the Bible is possible, whether the Lord would speak to a modern prophet. As I remember, you pointedly refused to answer the questions.

Utterwise, I can only draw my own conclusions on the assumptions behind your arguments. I then wrote a long post on what I thought was a reasonable conclusion on your assumptions, and your ONLY response was that "you are wrong", period.

You claim that you are "happy to respond" but You still refuse to answer. I have given you ample opportunity to respond.

Once again, I will allow you the final word if you so choose.

Edited December 24, 2012 by cdowis

[Gervin]

LOL!!!!

And yet to the hysterical evangelical anti-mormon, hand written copies of LDS documents must be questioned at every step posssible. While accepting without question hand written copies of older, less verifiable documents.

Nice double standard you got going there.

Yet, you accept certain second hand "claims" about witnesses to the resurrection while rejecting first hand witnesses to the gold plates.

Nice double standard you got going there.

And yet, you doubt the existence of certain signitures, even though there is both better quality and quantity of evidence that they did exist.

Nice double standard you got going there.

SIDE NOTE: Notice that Paul claimed authorship and that he did NOT attribute them to "God breathed".

Which says NOTHING about the contents being accurate.

Based only on Paul's writings. Yet the anti-Mormon ridiculously doubts the one time existence of certain signitures. LOL!!!

Again, just because an individual named Paul unquestioningly wrote some letters doesn't mean that the contents of those letters are accurate.

Nice double standard you got going there.

But perhap it was just the affect of a frenzied mind. Without a second, firsthand, independent witness to the events described to verify them, perhaps Paul just made them up to make himself look good.

For me, it's not so much that "every hand written copy" of LDS must be questioned but certainly the Book of Mormon should be questioned and scrutinized. The reference to Paul bring a good case in point. While I don't think Vance really believes Paul is a fictional character - or a real person who made up fictional stories - his record, as codified in the Bible, shows that his life and stories are consistent with a historical setting and historical record within a known geography. Scholars who study the New Testament don't have to first prove the basic elements of Paul's claims - the places, beliefs, events, culture, and language. The first LDS witnesses to the Book of Mormon - those people who are mentioned in the Book of Mormon - are still "lost" in time and location. The lack of any evidence for the existence of any life, location or culture described in the Book of Mormon is one of the most compelling witnesses to the veracity of the Book (but not the most compelling). An example of the scholarly treatment of Paul is here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/missions.html

I thought about hitting the report button on Vance b/c of his total disregard of Board Guidelines. But in the end, that's really too easy. No, it's better that Vance be free to post uninhibited; his kind of prejudice stands as one of the best (LDS?) testimonies on this Board. (And like pointing out how to spell "signature" - reporting wouldn't do any good.)