Witness For The Plates Vs. Witnesses For Resurrection

[Rob Bowman]

Pa Pa,

You wrote:

And what of Paul's different accounts by Luke?

What of them? You're not going to claim that the apparent discrepancies in these accounts are comparable to the discrepancies in Joseph Smith's accounts of his initial vision, are you?

If so, I have addressed this objection at length previously in a post in another thread on this forum, and in another follow-up post with additional details.

[mfbukowski]

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.

This is all of course according to the Bible which is the only evidence we have for itself. It testifies of itself.

How is that good evidence? It is about as good as the Lord of the Rings actually when you think of it.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Exactly.

[canard78]

Exactly.

To mfb and Nathair (believing Jesus to be a tribal deity without the Book of Mormon).

This is riddled with illogical thinking. We believe The Book of Mormon is true based on no reliable scientific evidence. It claims to be 'another,' but not only testimony of Christ. We believe because we have had a spiritual witness of it's divinity.

And yet... Without the BoM you would dismiss the Bible and Jesus Christ, the saviour of the world, to be a tribal deity? You don't think you could get a similar, unprovable witness of Christ's atonement without the BoM?

However did the Christians pre-1820s manage it?

I hope your comments are ironic. Otherwise it's a sad reflection of the narrow mindedness we Mormons can stoop to.

[mfbukowski]

I don’t see how that relates to the witness of the Book of Mormon. There is nothing in the biblical account that suggests that they were testifying of anything, and certainly not of something tangible like the plates of the BoM. I don’t see that the comparison is applicable.

That kind of sounds like you are bringing excuses. The purpose of witnesses in spiritual matters is not to effect conviction, but to provide just enough credibility to urge further investigation. The witness that counts is the one that comes direct God. Nobody becomes a Mormon just because of the testimony of the three or eight witnesses. They will become Mormons when they receive the testimony of the Holy Ghost for themselves. But that testimony will not come unless it is sought. Therefore there must be some initial impetuous before one takes the thing seriously enough to even consider investigation. On judgement day, God is not going to say to those who had not believed in the message of the Restoration, “Why did you not obtain full conviction from the testimony of the witnesses?” He is going to say, “Wasn’t that enough for you to give it serious thought?” That is the purpose of the witness—to provide just enough credibility to urge you to investigate. And if you investigate, you have the promise of the Lord that you will obtain.

Not every spiritual manifestation requires witnesses. We have no independent witnesses to Paul’s vision when he was taken to the third heaven, and saw and heard things that were not lawful to be uttered (2 Cor. 12:2-4). Some things require witnesses, and some don’t.

By “unbeliever” I meant unbeliever in the message of the Restoration. As for your conclusions, that is a matter for you do decide. I hope for your sakes that you are right. As for myself, I have no doubt that I am right.

Agreed.

And we have no evidence at all for the Bible- no contemporary accounts of Isaiah writing what he wrote, etc. We have nothing but what actually made it into what is now the "Bible" and of course anything contradictory to what made it through has been long since edited out.

And if you are looking for "evidence", donkeys don't talk, there is not enough water on the earth to cover it, and people do not come back from the dead, not to mention everything appearing out of nothing in six days.

If we are deciding this on evidence, it is totally absurd to believe in the Bible based on the alleged "evidence" it presents for itself.

[canard78]

How is that good evidence? It is about as good as the Lord of the Rings actually when you think of it.

But at least it comes with a map

[mfbukowski]

To mfb and Nathair (believing Jesus to be a tribal deity without the Book of Mormon).

This is riddled with illogical thinking. We believe The Book of Mormon is true based on no reliable scientific evidence. It claims to be 'another,' but not only testimony of Christ. We believe because we have had a spiritual witness of it's divinity.

And yet... Without the BoM you would dismiss the Bible and Jesus Christ, the saviour of the world, to be a tribal deity? You don't think you could get a similar, unprovable witness of Christ's atonement without the BoM?

However did the Christians pre-1820s manage it?

I hope your comments are ironic. Otherwise it's a sad reflection of the narrow mindedness we Mormons can stoop to.

The entire point is that one does not accept the Bible based on it's "evidence"- one accepts it based on faith and and some kind of spiritual witness that it is what it purports to be.

Of course I believe in the Bible, but not based on "evidence". There IS no "evidence" that Jesus is the Son of God unless the spirit whispers to your heart that it is true. And he has testified of that to me- as well as the truth of the Book of Mormon. That is the only way one can know the truth of any of this.

And yet... Without the BoM you would dismiss the Bible and Jesus Christ, the saviour of the world, to be a tribal deity? You don't think you could get a similar, unprovable witness of Christ's atonement without the BoM?

The point is without a spiritual witness there is no "evidence" which can show either one to be "true" spiritually.

Indeed without that spiritual witness I would - and did, before I received that witness- dismiss the whole story of Jesus as a tribal god, no different than Mithras or Zoroaster or Buddha or any other purported religious figure.

But that spiritual testimony changed my life. But based on evidence, there is just nothing there to convince anyone of anything spiritual.

Edited December 12, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Rob Bowman]

mathonihah,

Thanks for replying to me in such a gracious manner. I hope I do as well.

I had cited the fact that there were hundreds of prophets of Baal and Asherah to show that multiple witnesses, though important, is not sufficient by itself to establish a claim. You replied:

I don’t see how that relates to the witness of the Book of Mormon. There is nothing in the biblical account that suggests that they were testifying of anything, and certainly not of something tangible like the plates of the BoM. I don’t see that the comparison is applicable.

Fair enough. But as I think about your objection I realize that this whole business of needing select witnesses to testify to the existence of the gold plates is itself problematic. We don't need witnesses to attest to the existence of the Great Isaiah Scroll, Codex Sinaiticus, or the silver scrolls of Ketef Hinnom. Anyone with sufficient means to get there can go to the appropriate museum or library and see these and other physical objects for themselves. In the Bible, no one rests their belief in any book of scripture on the testimony of individuals who claim they had seen the scrolls or other writing material on which that book was written. There is such a disconnect here that I'm not sure I can make the problem sufficiently clear. The whole idea is very much out of left field.

Let me ask you: do you think the mere fact of multiple witnesses to a physical object is sufficient evidence of its existence? If you don't, then you agree with my point, even if you don't agree with my illustration.

You wrote:

That kind of sounds like you are bringing excuses. The purpose of witnesses in spiritual matters is not to effect conviction, but to provide just enough credibility to urge further investigation. The witness that counts is the one that comes direct God. Nobody becomes a Mormon just because of the testimony of the three or eight witnesses. They will become Mormons when they receive the testimony of the Holy Ghost for themselves. But that testimony will not come unless it is sought. Therefore there must be some initial impetuous before one takes the thing seriously enough to even consider investigation. On judgement day, God is not going to say to those who had not believed in the message of the Restoration, “Why did you not obtain full conviction from the testimony of the witnesses?” He is going to say, “Wasn’t that enough for you to give it serious thought?” That is the purpose of the witness—to provide just enough credibility to urge you to investigate. And if you investigate, you have the promise of the Lord that you will obtain.

Well, I have investigated, and I reached a different conclusion. You will no doubt suspect that I investigated with a closed mind, but I happen to recall that when I first heard about the Book of Mormon I saw no reason why it might not be true and began my investigation of the matter from that perspective. However, the more of the Book of Mormon that I read and the more I investigated its origins the more evidence I found against it.

The facts that I briefly listed for you are not excuses; they are significant pieces of information that should be taken into account in assessing the plausibility of the witnesses' testimonies.

To extend the analogy with the resurrection of Jesus, allow me to tell a little story. Suppose Peter had seen Jesus and then told the other disciples that Jesus was alive and hiding somewhere near Capernaum. Peter was allowed to go see Jesus at any time but none of the other disciples were allowed to see him for well over a year. In some cases Peter and the disciples were in a house together and Peter claimed that Jesus was in a back room -- but he was not to be disturbed. Finally, Peter reported that John and two other disciples would be allowed to see Jesus. Peter took them out to the woods, where the three prayed intensely to be granted a vision of Jesus, which they reported receiving. Later Peter allowed eight more people -- four men from his family and four from the Zebedee family -- to see Jesus and even to shake his hand. During these two appearances, however, Jesus said nothing -- the disciples saw him and in some cases reported touching him, but they never heard him speak.

The above imaginative scenario is very roughly comparable to what we have in the case of the eleven witnesses to the Book of Mormon. I think you can probably see why such a story provokes justified skepticism.

You wrote:

Not every spiritual manifestation requires witnesses. We have no independent witnesses to Paul’s vision when he was taken to the third heaven, and saw and heard things that were not lawful to be uttered (2 Cor. 12:2-4). Some things require witnesses, and some don’t.

Paul's vision is not a major or foundational element of the Christian religion. The First Vision is, on the other hand, a major and foundational element of the Mormon religion. LDS prophets and apostles routinely claim that it is in importance second only to the resurrection of Jesus among all of the events in world history. Yet we have only Joseph Smith's word for it that it happened.

You wrote:

By “unbeliever” I meant unbeliever in the message of the Restoration. As for your conclusions, that is a matter for you do decide. I hope for your sakes that you are right. As for myself, I have no doubt that I am right.

I hope for your sake that at some point you give the evidence a more open scrutiny.

[Tacenda]

To mfb and Nathair (believing Jesus to be a tribal deity without the Book of Mormon).

This is riddled with illogical thinking. We believe The Book of Mormon is true based on no reliable scientific evidence. It claims to be 'another,' but not only testimony of Christ. We believe because we have had a spiritual witness of it's divinity.

And yet... Without the BoM you would dismiss the Bible and Jesus Christ, the saviour of the world, to be a tribal deity? You don't think you could get a similar, unprovable witness of Christ's atonement without the BoM?

However did the Christians pre-1820s manage it?

I hope your comments are ironic. Otherwise it's a sad reflection of the narrow mindedness we Mormons can stoop to.

Hear, hear!

[Nathair/|\]

To mfb and Nathair (believing Jesus to be a tribal deity without the Book of Mormon).

This is riddled with illogical thinking. We believe The Book of Mormon is true based on no reliable scientific evidence. It claims to be 'another,' but not only testimony of Christ. We believe because we have had a spiritual witness of it's divinity.

And yet... Without the BoM you would dismiss the Bible and Jesus Christ, the saviour of the world, to be a tribal deity? You don't think you could get a similar, unprovable witness of Christ's atonement without the BoM?

However did the Christians pre-1820s manage it?

I hope your comments are ironic. Otherwise it's a sad reflection of the narrow mindedness we Mormons can stoop to.

Nope. I first developed a testimony of Christ through my study of the Book of Mormon. Without it, I would not have seen any reason to bother looking for one.

[canard78]

The entire point is that one does not accept the Bible based on it's "evidence"- one accepts it based on faith and and some kind of spiritual witness that it is what it purports to be.

Of course I believe in the Bible, but not based on "evidence". There IS no "evidence" that Jesus is the Son of God unless the spirit whispers to your heart that it is true. And he has testified of that to me- as well as the truth of the Book of Mormon. That is the only way one can know the truth of any of this.

The point is without a spiritual witness there is no "evidence" which can show either one to be "true" spiritually.

Indeed without that spiritual witness I would - and did, before I received that witness- dismiss the whole story of Jesus as a tribal god, no different than Mithras or Zoroaster or Buddha or any other purported religious figure.

But that spiritual testimony changed my life. But based on evidence, there is just nothing there to convince anyone of anything spiritual.

Then we are entirely in agreement, but for one thing. It's the spiritual witness that leads to the belief that Jesus Christ is something more than a tribal deity. Not the Book of Mormon. If your witness of the Book of Mormon lead to your witness of Christ, it's still the spirit on which we depend, not the BoM. Non-mormons can and do still get that witness without the BoM. You could have too.

But I agree that quibbling over the 11 witnesses and the Bible witnesses is pointless given no evidence of either can convince anyone to become Christian (or it's rare).

[mfbukowski]

Nope. I first developed a testimony of Christ through my study of the Book of Mormon. Without it, I would not have seen any reason to bother looking for one.

Likewise.

[mfbukowski]

But I agree that quibbling over the 11 witnesses and the Bible witnesses is pointless given no evidence of either can convince anyone to become Christian (or it's rare).

That's my point!

So why are we quibbling?

[canard78]

Nope. I first developed a testimony of Christ through my study of the Book of Mormon. Without it, I would not have seen any reason to bother looking for one.

So how did Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, John Wesley, Martin Luther and millions others possibly manage it? Without the BoM, how did they "bother looking for one?"

I love the BoM as I've said before, but it's the spirit that taught of Jesus. The Bible could just as well have been used by God. You've no way of knowing you "wouldn't have bothered" without the Book of Mormon.

I once said to my Maths teacher "I will never use Maths in my career,so why bother?" I now work in market research and use maths and stats every day. Well I showed him!

[Nathair/|\]

So how did Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, John Wesley, Martin Luther and millions others possibly manage it? Without the BoM, how did they "bother looking for one?"

I love the BoM as I've said before, but it's the spirit that taught of Jesus. The Bible could just as well have been used by God. You've no way of knowing you "wouldn't have bothered" without the Book of Mormon.

I once said to my Maths teacher "I will never use Maths in my career,so why bother?" I now work in market research and use maths and stats every day. Well I showed him!

I'm not them. I'm not criticizing others for believing in Christ without the BOM, just that I know my own personality and interests. I find mainstream, exoteric Abrahamism rather dull, honestly. It's only the esoteric principles of Mormonism and the world of the Book of Mormon that allowed it to hold my interest long enough to gain a testimony.

[canard78]

That's my point!

So why are we quibbling?

Because I had an issue with the idea that ONLY the Book of Mormon could deliver a testimony of Christ.

I'm happy to accept that the BoM is the trigger for contemplation of Christ, but if it was 'the spirit wot done it' the BoM could just have well have been the writings of CS Lewis, Charles ****ens, the Bible, the Quran or even the aforementioned Lord of the Rings (if you read it sideways enough). That one particular text was a trigger for a spiritual witness of Christ is not the only way either of you could have ever got one.

[mfbukowski]

So how did Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, John Wesley, Martin Luther and millions others possibly manage it? Without the BoM, how did they "bother looking for one?"

I love the BoM as I've said before, but it's the spirit that taught of Jesus. The Bible could just as well have been used by God. You've no way of knowing you "wouldn't have bothered" without the Book of Mormon.

I once said to my Maths teacher "I will never use Maths in my career,so why bother?" I now work in market research and use maths and stats every day. Well I showed him!

The Bible does not have Moroni 10:4-5. It's that simple. No Moroni, no Bible. How could you know any of it is true?

[mfbukowski]

Because I had an issue with the idea that ONLY the Book of Mormon could deliver a testimony of Christ.

I'm happy to accept that the BoM is the trigger for contemplation of Christ, but if it was 'the spirit wot done it' the BoM could just have well have been the writings of CS Lewis, Charles ****ens, the Bible, the Quran or even the aforementioned Lord of the Rings (if you read it sideways enough). That one particular text was a trigger for a spiritual witness of Christ is not the only way either of you could have ever got one.

Yeah but who would have thought to pray to God for guidance about a book without Moroni?

I read that and it was the most amazing thing I had ever heard in my life. You read a book and God will tell you it is true? It was the wildest thing I had ever heard in my life!

[canard78]

I'm not them. I'm not criticizing others for believing in Christ without the BOM, just that I know my own personality and interests. I find mainstream, exoteric Abrahamism rather dull, honestly. It's only the esoteric principles of Mormonism and the world of the Book of Mormon that allowed it to hold my interest long enough to gain a testimony.

I'm simply trying to avoid the idea that only the BoM could have worked for you.

It's always in the 'last pocket' because after that we stop looking. If it hadn't been in the 'Book of Mormon' pocket you could have found it in the 'CS Lewis' one. I'm simply saying that to believe only the BoM could have done it is missing the point that it was the spirit not the BoM that did it.

Until last year I'd only ever got fit from getting motivated to go running. It was 'my way' then last year I discovered a canal path and started cycling.

[canard78]

Yeah but who would have thought to pray to God for guidance about a book without Moroni?

I read that and it was the most amazing thing I had ever heard in my life. You read a book and God will tell you it is true? It was the wildest thing I had ever heard in my life!

Firstly, I love that Chales ****ens is being censored

Second, simply that there are other ways the Spirit can witness of Christ other than in answer to a prayer about the BoM, which was the issue I raise. And our dear old Joseph had the thought to ask in prayer after reading none other than... The bible.

I'm delighted that the spiritual witness of the BoM also brought you unto Christ. Hey, me too! But it's not the only way it could have been done for you or Nathair. God's a bit more powerful than being limited to just one book for each of us (which is why we have 4, plus the 100s of Deseret extras).

[mfbukowski]

I'm simply trying to avoid the idea that only the BoM could have worked for you.

Why?

The whole point is that Mormonism worked for me, and I would not have accepted any of it- the Bible etc- without the Mormon interpretation. Before I found the church I believed that I had lived before I came here. I believed that we should try to be the best humans we were capable of being. I actually believed that God was a human being, or that human beings could be gods.

I believed that if we used to have prophets, we should still have them. I believed that God could speak to us if he wanted to.

Does any of this sound familiar?

[mfbukowski]

Firstly, I love that Chales ****ens is being censored

Second, simply that there are other ways the Spirit can witness of Christ other than in answer to a prayer about the BoM, which was the issue I raise. And our dear old Joseph had the thought to ask in prayer after reading none other than... The bible.

I'm delighted that the spiritual witness of the BoM also brought you unto Christ. Hey, me too! But it's not the only way it could have been done for you or Nathair. God's a bit more powerful than being limited to just one book for each of us (which is why we have 4, plus the 100s of Deseret extras).

Mormon doctrine is not in the Bible. THAT is what I was looking for and found here. I was not interested in Christianity as taught in other churches.

[Calm]

So we simply can't say that having the rest of the BoM geography verfiable would bring the world rushing to our door with no faith needed. That is an arguement with no validity.

I agree that other explanations could be found if we had significant locations pinpointed and accepted by the world at large from the Book of Mormon. However, it is different in quality to such locations in the Bible and the D&C because of the claimed source of the knowledge of the locations. For the Bible, most locations are simply tied to historically known sites. For the Doctrine & Covenants, again these are originally known through historical references where such locations are. For the Book of Mormon, at this point the source of the location or at least the description of these locations is solely through revelation with some educated footwork trying to figure out where that revelation puts those locations. If we ever come up with independently scientifically agreed upon evidence of these locations, there needs to be an explanation of how that revelation was accurate to the degree it is found to be. It is closer in analogy to a biblical prophecy coming true in the latter days than it is to the biblical geography issue.

So while it is not the automatic 'faith replacer' that some claim it would be, it puts a greater burden on trying to explain Joseph Smith's work away than exists today.

Personally I think as more and more discoveries are made, there will be greater and greater convergences found so that while the certainty will never be the same as it is for biblical sites that have been inhabited since before the Bible mentions them with the same name continuing for ages, it will grow difficult to just dismiss as pure guesswork and imagination.

If a Zarahemla location is unimportant, why spend so many $1000s in the Indiana Jones style quest to find it.

Is someone doing this? Edited December 12, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Firstly, I love that Chales ****ens is being censored

Yes, we are much more formal here and insist upon "Charles Richardens" as the only proper form for civil conversation.

[why me]

When I read Harris' story I find it difficult to see anything other than a lonely old man clinging onto the one thing that brought attention.

When we get we get lonely. And we have our memories. Maybe Martin remembered his mormon days with the plates and his experiences and reevaluated his life. And the members in Utah knowing his plight wanted him to come to Utah to be with the people who respected and loved him. Whatever reason, he never denied the book of mormon which would make his own human nature unique.

Our human nature is not exactly programmed to go through life with a fraud secret of this magnitude from ever coming out of us. Likewise for the other witnesses. We need to think about this. Could you keep such a fraud a secret knowing the persecution that this fraud caused to many people? Yet, 11 did.

Which makes it a fraud all the more unlikely.