Witness For The Plates Vs. Witnesses For Resurrection

[canard78]

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?

The idea that God may have lead you to a group to worship with ideas like the ones you already had or that you found a place that met your preconceived ideas is an interesting topic but probably not for this thread.

I guess there's a risk we go round in circles in this. I don't think we can say 'this way' is the only way that could have EVER worked to bring us to Jesus. If you don't agree and you are certain that no other book than the BoM would have given you any inclination of Christ's divinity then that's where I can't say any more.

By the way, about half of what you said isn't even in the BoM. This isn't even me asking what convinced you of Mormonisms truth. I'm just saying Jesus Christ's divinity is not dependent on a spiritual witness of or from reading the BoM.

[Tacenda]

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.

I understand Mormonism speaks to you through the BoM. But the doctrines of man becoming Gods or like God, is that in the BoM or is baptism for the dead? I've always felt it read like the King James version of the bible. And the doctrines of our church are held mainly in the other scriptures, D&C and PoGP. But you have found something that verified what you've always believed and that is cool.

[Saints Alive]

Mormon doctrine is not in the Bible.

Did I read that right? I think the majority of the faithful would disagree.

[mfbukowski]

I'm just saying Jesus Christ's divinity is not dependent on a spiritual witness of or from reading the BoM.

Who said it was? Not me!

All I said was that it was for me. I already knew the bible and discarded it as fairy tales. It did not contain any "evidence" for its veracity as long as I was concerned, any more than the Zoroastrian Avesta did.

But for me the breakthrough was the Book of Mormon. If that was true, and it testified of Christ, then Christ must indeed be the savior. My pivotal spiritual experience was achieved through the BOM.

[mfbukowski]

Did I read that right? I think the majority of the faithful would disagree.

Ok. Then I guess there was no need for a restoration because it was all there already.

Obviously no, you did not read it right. I was talking about the BOM AND the restored church as one whole.

[mathonihah]

That is not correct and it frustrates me that it gets trotted out so often. Having a geographic location would not make miracles, visions and theological teaching facts.

I can visit the sacred grove, that doesn't make the first vision a fact.

I can visit Kirkland, that doesn't make the Elijah vision a fact.

I can visit Canaan and Egypt, that doesn't make Abraham's vision a fact.

I can visit Bethlehem, that doesn't make the immaculate conception a fact.

Etc etc.

You are not getting it. In the case of the Book of Mormon, providing incontrovertible, independently verifiable information about geographical locations in association with it is tantamount to proving the authenticity of the Book of Mormon as a fact.

[mathonihah]

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.

Your objection amounts to a quibble. Witnesses are required for the Book of Mormon precisely because they were not "found" by scholars in the same manner that the Bible books have been found or known to exist, but because they were revealed—and translated—by miraculous means.

Well, I have investigated, and I reached a different conclusion....

Fair enough. Then we have nothing more to talk about, do we. We will just have to wait for the Lord to decide the outcome.

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.

Okay, the Lord has decided in his wisdom that the Book of Mormon is what required a witness, not every other vision or revelation that Joseph Smith received, including the First Vision. That is our position. What are you going to do about it?

[mfbukowski]

You are not getting it. In the case of the Book of Mormon, providing incontrovertible, independently verifiable information about geographical locations in association with it is tantamount to proving the authenticity of the Book of Mormon as a fact.

Except in its spiritual aspects. Then theoretically it would become a book about history, no better or worse than the bible's alleged "history" but its spiritual truths would yet need to be justified spiritually.

[thesometimesaint]

rob Bowman:

"Paul's vision is not a major or foundational element of the Christian religion".

With 13 of the Epistles written by Paul such an ideas is laughable

[mfbukowski]

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.

And no one that I have ever heard of bases their belief in the Book of Mormon on the statement of the witnesses either.

There were no witnesses to the Book of Abraham, there were no witnesses to the revelations in the D&C and those are canonized scripture. The BOM witnesses are a nice footnote to the history of the origins of the BOM but really are nothing more than anecdotal "evidence".

And thanks for pointing out that seeing the scrolls is irrelevant to belief in the bible. Such witnesses are just as irrelevant to the BOM.

[mfbukowski]

rob Bowman:

"Paul's vision is not a major or foundational element of the Christian religion".

With 13 of the Epistles written by Paul such an ideas is laughable

An excellent point! Most of the doctrine Evangelicals use in fact is found in the epistles! Were it not for Paul's conversion there would BE no "Evangelicals".

[thesometimesaint]

In all likelihood there wouldn't be any other Christians either, or it would have remained a small subset of Judaism.

Edited December 12, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Rob Bowman]

thesometimesaint,

You wrote:

"Paul's vision is not a major or foundational element of the Christian religion".

With 13 of the Epistles written by Paul such an ideas is laughable

I don't think you followed what was said. The vision of Paul referenced here was his experience of being caught up into the third heaven, which he mentions in 2 Corinthians 12. That vision played no significant role in the foundation of Christianity. It is not a significant basis for accepting Paul's epistles as Scripture.

Paul's experience of seeing the risen Jesus is, of course, a more significant event. One accepts Paul's epistles as Scripture only if one accepts his claim to have seen the risen Jesus. According to Acts, Paul was not alone when he had that encounter with Jesus, although his companions did not themselves see Christ. However, the evidence that Paul had this experience is overwhelming. He was a bitter opponent of the Christian movement, persecuting Christians, until suddenly he stopped and became a Christian. Not only that, but Paul became an apostle whose ministry focused on opening the door to Gentile inclusion in the people of God without their being circumcised or submitting to the Law of Moses. Something obviously happened to Paul that reoriented him 180 degrees from Pharisee to Christian apostle. Even hardened skeptics acknowledge that Paul at least thought he saw the risen Jesus. And the other apostles, who had also seen the risen Jesus, met with Paul and accepted him as an apostle, thus endorsing his claim to have seen Jesus. Thus, we have excellent reasons to accept Paul's claim to have seen Jesus.

In any case, the foundational event of the Christian faith is not Paul's encounter with the risen Jesus, as important as that is, but the fact of Jesus' resurrection itself. This fact rests not on the testimony of one man (Paul) but is attested by multiple independent witnesses, as I have explained. By contrast, most of the distinctive elements of Mormonism depend on Joseph's testimony alone. Yes, the three witnesses reported seeing the angel and the plates, and the eight witnesses reported seeing and handling the plates. But only Joseph knows what if anything he really saw in his hat, or whether he saw anyone in the spring of 1820, or if he really had all of those many encounters with the angel, or whether the characters he drew for Martin to take to New York were really copied from gold plates, or whether he sincerely believed that he was receiving inspired messages from the Lord, or whether he sincerely believed that God had revealed to him the correct translation of the Egyptian papyri that the LDS Church purchased in 1835. In particular, the importance that the LDS Church assigns to the First Vision makes it legitimate to ask whether it is credible to place such weight on a story for which we only have one man's word.

You can stop laughing now.

[Rob Bowman]

mathonihah,

You wrote:

Your objection amounts to a quibble. Witnesses are required for the Book of Mormon precisely because they were not "found" by scholars in the same manner that the Bible books have been found or known to exist, but because they were revealed—and translated—by miraculous means.

If the gold plates were real, they were themselves not miraculous objects. They were physical objects, constructed by men, engraved by men, and buried by a man. Joseph says he found them buried in a stone box in the ground. He could lift them, walk (and even run) around with them, turn the pages, and copy characters from them, all using his natural, physical abilities. There's no good reason for these physical artifacts not to be available for public viewing, just as the many biblical manuscripts and other biblical artifacts can be seen with natural eyes. This isn't a quibble; it's a real, significant difference between the Bible and the Book of Mormon with regard to the physical evidence available for each.

You wrote:

Fair enough. Then we have nothing more to talk about, do we. We will just have to wait for the Lord to decide the outcome.

Well, we could both show some willingness to hear what the other has to say and give each other's arguments serious consideration. Or is that not an option from your perspective?

You wrote:

Okay, the Lord has decided in his wisdom that the Book of Mormon is what required a witness, not every other vision or revelation that Joseph Smith received, including the First Vision. That is our position. What are you going to do about it?

I'm going to continue to point out this inconsistency, along with the other evidences that cumulatively weigh heavily against the truth of Joseph Smith's claims.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Bowman:

thesometimesaint,

You wrote:

I don't think you followed what was said. The vision of Paul referenced here was his experience of being caught up into the third heaven, which he mentions in 2 Corinthians 12. That vision played no significant role in the foundation of Christianity. It is not a significant basis for accepting Paul's epistles as Scripture.

Paul's experience of seeing the risen Jesus is, of course, a more significant event. One accepts Paul's epistles as Scripture only if one accepts his claim to have seen the risen Jesus. According to Acts, Paul was not alone when he had that encounter with Jesus, although his companions did not themselves see Christ. However, the evidence that Paul had this experience is overwhelming. He was a bitter opponent of the Christian movement, persecuting Christians, until suddenly he stopped and became a Christian. Not only that, but Paul became an apostle whose ministry focused on opening the door to Gentile inclusion in the people of God without their being circumcised or submitting to the Law of Moses. Something obviously happened to Paul that reoriented him 180 degrees from Pharisee to Christian apostle. Even hardened skeptics acknowledge that Paul at least thought he saw the risen Jesus. And the other apostles, who had also seen the risen Jesus, met with Paul and accepted him as an apostle, thus endorsing his claim to have seen Jesus. Thus, we have excellent reasons to accept Paul's claim to have seen Jesus.

In any case, the foundational event of the Christian faith is not Paul's encounter with the risen Jesus, as important as that is, but the fact of Jesus' resurrection itself. This fact rests not on the testimony of one man (Paul) but is attested by multiple independent witnesses, as I have explained. By contrast, most of the distinctive elements of Mormonism depend on Joseph's testimony alone. Yes, the three witnesses reported seeing the angel and the plates, and the eight witnesses reported seeing and handling the plates. But only Joseph knows what if anything he really saw in his hat, or whether he saw anyone in the spring of 1820, or if he really had all of those many encounters with the angel, or whether the characters he drew for Martin to take to New York were really copied from gold plates, or whether he sincerely believed that he was receiving inspired messages from the Lord, or whether he sincerely believed that God had revealed to him the correct translation of the Egyptian papyri that the LDS Church purchased in 1835. In particular, the importance that the LDS Church assigns to the First Vision makes it legitimate to ask whether it is credible to place such weight on a story for which we only have one man's word.

You can stop laughing now.

Without Paul there wouldn't be Christianity, or at least nothing like it is today. He every bit as central to Christians as any other Apostle. In fact more so. Because of Paul, the great commission, Christianity was preached to the gentiles.

I'm not a critic of Paul. I believe he was an authentic Apostle of Christ. Whatever he experienced on the road to Damascus, the record contradicts itself, it sure changed his life. and the lives of Billions of people whom have been Christians ever since.

Without someone to testify to that Resurrection there would be no Christianity as we know it. Paul came along long after the death of Jesus. He is another testimony to the divinity of Christ.

Without the First Vision JS would have become just another Protestant. Just as with Paul and his First Vision led him out of Judaism to become central to the development of Christianity.

No one knows what if anything Paul actually saw on that road to Damascus. We have to take his word for it. Don't you see the double standard you are trying to invoke?

[mfbukowski]

According to Acts, Paul was not alone when he had that encounter with Jesus, although his companions did not themselves see Christ. However, the evidence that Paul had this experience is overwhelming. He was a bitter opponent of the Christian movement, persecuting Christians, until suddenly he stopped and became a Christian. Not only that, but Paul became an apostle whose ministry focused on opening the door to Gentile inclusion in the people of God without their being circumcised or submitting to the Law of Moses. Something obviously happened to Paul that reoriented him 180 degrees from Pharisee to Christian apostle.

Yes that is the story the bible tells with no source corroborating it but the bible itself.

In any case, the foundational event of the Christian faith is not Paul's encounter with the risen Jesus, as important as that is, but the fact of Jesus' resurrection itself. This fact rests not on the testimony of one man (Paul) but is attested by multiple independent witnesses, as I have explained.

Found only in the bible.

By contrast, most of the distinctive elements of Mormonism depend on Joseph's testimony alone. Yes, the three witnesses reported seeing the angel and the plates, and the eight witnesses reported seeing and handling the plates.

And how many witnesses do we have of biblical events independent of the bible?

But only Joseph knows what if anything he really saw in his hat, or whether he saw anyone in the spring of 1820, or if he really had all of those many encounters with the angel, or whether the characters he drew for Martin to take to New York were really copied from gold plates, or whether he sincerely believed that he was receiving inspired messages from the Lord, or whether he sincerely believed that God had revealed to him the correct translation of the Egyptian papyri that the LDS Church purchased in 1835. In particular, the importance that the LDS Church assigns to the First Vision makes it legitimate to ask whether it is credible to place such weight on a story for which we only have one man's word.

But of course independent evidence of Paul's alleged vision of Jesus doesn't even exist! We have only his word, and the word of others in the story.

It could be total fiction for all we know by "evidence"- the whole thing created out of nothing but legendary events.

At least with the BOM we have some evidence that something happened as corroborated by independent witnesses. Something happened.

These were historic events whether or not they happened as the witnesses said they did. There is no possibility that the entire chain of events is fictional, as is possible with the bible.

[mathonihah]

Except in its spiritual aspects. Then theoretically it would become a book about history, no better or worse than the bible's alleged "history" but its spiritual truths would yet need to be justified spiritually.

That is not quite true. Unlike the Bible, the Book of Mormon claims to be a miraculous production in all its aspects, even down to its translation. If it can be proven that it is historically true, that would prove that its miraculous origin is also true, which would be a verification of its spirituality also.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't believe that to be true. The ancient Greek stories of their Gods took place in a real place, but that says nothing about the Truth Claims of those stories.

[mfbukowski]

That is not quite true. Unlike the Bible, the Book of Mormon claims to be a miraculous production in all its aspects, even down to its translation. If it can be proven that it is historically true, that would prove that its miraculous origin is also true, which would be a verification of its spirituality also.

Sorry - that is just plain not so.

If tomorrow morning someone found an entire city with inscriptions in reformed Egyptian and a sign saying "Welcome to Zarahemla" that would not prove anything about the religion of its inhabitants any more than the city of Persepolis shows that Zoroastrianism is God's "true religion" or that the city of Jerusalem proves that Islam is God's "true religion".

That's like saying the existence of the Church of the Nativity proves Jesus' miraculous virgin birth. Obviously it doesn't. The existence of relics of the past proves nothing about their significance, or the entire world would be Christian.

Even the bible points that out. Many saw Jesus' miracles first-hand but did not believe he was the Son of God and the messiah! They saw him with their own eyes and still did not believe.

All the evidence in the world- including first hand observation of miracles will not convince everyone.

And we are supposed to believe some semi-legendary self-fulfilling account of someone coming back to life based on nothing but it's corroboration of itself?

Nothing in the natural man can be converted by natural means. It takes a spiritual eye to take anything religious seriously.

Edited December 12, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mathonihah]

If the gold plates were real, they were themselves not miraculous objects. They were physical objects, constructed by men, engraved by men, and buried by a man. Joseph says he found them buried in a stone box in the ground.

Not quite. He said they were revealed to him. He didn't just stumble upon them by chance.

He could lift them, walk (and even run) around with them, turn the pages, and copy characters from them, all using his natural, physical abilities. There's no good reason for these physical artifacts not to be available for public viewing, just as the many biblical manuscripts and other biblical artifacts can be seen with natural eyes. This isn't a quibble; it's a real, significant difference between the Bible and the Book of Mormon with regard to the physical evidence available for each.

Except that the Lord in his wisdom has decided to do it that way. He has even told us why:

"Verily, I say unto you, that woe shall come unto the inhabitants of the earth if they will not hearken unto my words;

"For hereafter you shall be ordained and go forth and deliver my words unto the children of men.

"Behold, if they will not believe my words, they would not believe you, my servant Joseph, if it were possible that you should show them all these things which I have committed unto you." (D&C 5:5-7)

"Marvel not that I said unto you: Here is wisdom, show it not unto the world—for I said, show it not unto the world, that you may be preserved.

"Behold, I do not say that you shall not show it unto the righteous;

"But as you cannot always judge the righteous, or as you cannot always tell the wicked from the righteous, therefore I say unto you, hold your peace until I shall see fit to make all things known unto the world concerning the matter." (D&C 10:35-37)

"I soon found out the reason why I had received such strict charges to keep them safe, and why it was that the messenger had said that when I had done what was required at my hand, he would call for them. For no sooner was it known that I had them, than the most strenuous exertions were used to get them from me. Every stratagem that could be invented was resorted to for that purpose. The persecution became more bitter and severe than before, and multitudes were on the alert continually to get them from me if possible. But by the wisdom of God, they remained safe in my hands, until I had accomplished by them what was required at my hand. When, according to arrangements, the messenger called for them, I delivered them up to him; and he has them in his charge until this day, being the second day of May, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight." (JS-H 1:60)

Well, we could both show some willingness to hear what the other has to say and give each other's arguments serious consideration. Or is that not an option from your perspective?

Except that when the debate reaches the foundational level of testimony, there is nothing more left to argue about.

I'm going to continue to point out this inconsistency, along with the other evidences that cumulatively weigh heavily against the truth of Joseph Smith's claims.

Good luck, except that you can't argue against a testimony.

Edited December 12, 2012 by mathonihah

[mfbukowski]

Good luck, except that you can't argue against a testimony.

Yep and that works both ways. Arguments can't get you one either!

[mathonihah]

Sorry - that is just plain not so.

If tomorrow morning someone found an entire city with inscriptions in reformed Egyptian and a sign saying "Welcome to Zarahemla" that would not prove anything about the religion of its inhabitants any more than the city of Persepolis shows that Zoroastrianism is God's "true religion" or that the city of Jerusalem proves that Islam is God's "true religion".

<snip>

It would prove that the book is historically true. It would prove that Joseph Smith who translated it was therefore a Prophet, and was telling the truth. It would prove that it was translated by the gift and power of God, as he claimed it was. It would prove that there is such a thing as the angel Moroni—and therefore other angels. It would prove that there is a God, who is behind it all. And the ripple continues as far as you want to take it.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Pa Pa,

You wrote:

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.

Asking why the double standard when it comes to accounts. Alos you put much stop the Apostles because they all died believers...so I'd the three witnesses. Havin all be ex'ed they would every reason to expose Joseph...they did not, two returned and lived out their days with the Saints...did Judas return?

[cdowis]

If the gold plates were real, they were themselves not miraculous objects. They were physical objects, constructed by men, engraved by men, and buried by a man. Joseph says he found them buried in a stone box in the ground. He could lift them, walk (and even run) around with them, turn the pages, and copy characters from them, all using his natural, physical abilities. There's no good reason for these physical artifacts not to be available for public viewing, just as the many biblical manuscripts and other biblical artifacts can be seen with natural eyes. This isn't a quibble; it's a real, significant difference between the Bible and the Book of Mormon with regard to the physical evidence available for each.

After the resurrection, Christ appeared to the disciples, ate fish and honey. They felt the wounds on his hands Not a spiritual experience but natural ones..

These are physical events. Now He could have come to Pilot's house and shown himself, and perhaps had dinner with him after the resurrection, Indeed He could have done a great deed by appearing to Caesar and the entire senate. There is good reason to do this simple physical act.

Your basic argument is "I know how God thinks and what he would do., and if it contradicts my understanding how God works, it is not from God. Using this unassailable logic, I will cleverly prove JS a false prophet."

Edited December 12, 2012 by cdowis

[Rob Bowman]

Pa Pa,

You wrote:

Asking why the double standard when it comes to accounts. Alos you put much stop the Apostles because they all died believers...so I'd the three witnesses. Havin all be ex'ed they would every reason to expose Joseph...they did not, two returned and lived out their days with the Saints...did Judas return?

There is no double standard. I don't know what "you put much stop the Apostles" means, but I never said anything about all of the apostles dying as believers, although that is true with the obvious exception of Judas. Of course, Judas killed himself before Jesus rose from the dead and thus had no opportunity to be a witness to Jesus' resurrection, let alone to "return."

I gave you links to posts in which I thoroughly refuted the objection you raised; if you aren't going to engage the arguments I presented, our little exchange has run its course.