Board index ‹ Mormonism; Latter Day Saints

[Hazel]

Hello!

Aren't the miracles of Mormonism much, much better attested than the miracles of Christianity?

When discussing the historicity of the gospels, I personally feel like there is far too much emphasis put onto the idea that the gospels can be trusted because they "contain eye-witness account". It seems to me that by any standard, the eye-witness accounts of Mormonism (just as one example, among countless of modern cults) are much, much stronger, and yet are not considered historical by most Christians. As an example...

In Mormonism, the "testimony of the three witnesses" is a first-hand, eye-witness account describing an angel's visitation on the day that it occurred (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/three?lang=eng). It is directly signed by three men whose existence in history is indisputable (we have mountains of family records, direct eye-witness experiences with them, legal documents, paraphernalia, etc).

Compare this to, say, the Annunciation. The Annunciation is described by only one source (the Gospel of Luke), generally accepted to be written at least eighty years after the event. We don't know who wrote this source, and even the traditional author (the disciple Luke) doesn't claim to be an eye-witness, and does not mention speaking to Mary, or any other eye-witness of the event. From what I understand, there are no contemporary extra-biblical references to Luke at all.

Considering this, shouldn't the first visitation described be considered much more historical than the latter?

[jimwalton]

Great question.

You know there are deep questions about the legitimacy of the document ("The Testimony of the Three Witnesses"). The original doesn't exist. The oldest copy that does exist has all three signatures by the same handwriting, assumed to be that of Oliver Cowdery.

The real problem with the Mormon story lies in what is being claimed. We have to look at the total picture. The alleged plates are claimed to have been hidden in the earth from the year 420 until September 22, 1823, when Joe Smith discovered them. And yet the golden plates give extensive quotations from the King James Bible (AD 1611). They contain anachronisms that could not have been known to its supposed author in AD 420. It puts words of Jesus (though often distorted) into the mouths of men alleged to have lived centuries before Christ.

Secondly, there's some confusion about this "testimony." Smith himself writes, "Not many days after the above commandment was given, we four, viz., Martin Harris, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery and myself, agreed to retire into the woods, and try to obtain, by fervent and humble prayer, the fulfilment of the promises given in the above revelation-that they should have a view of the plates. We accordingly made choice of a piece of woods convenient to Mr. Whitmer’s house, to which we retired, and having knelt down, we began to pray in much faith to Almighty God to bestow upon us a realization of these promises.

"According to previous arrangement, I commenced prayer to our Heavenly Father, and was followed by each of the others in succession. We did not at the first trial, however, obtain any answer or manifestation of divine favor in our behalf. We again observed the same order of prayer, each calling on and praying fervently to God in rotation, but with the same result as before.

"Upon this, our second failure, Martin Harris proposed that he should withdraw himself from us, believing, as he expressed himself, that his presence was the cause of our not obtaining what we wished for. He accordingly with drew from us, and we knelt down again, and had not been many minutes engaged in prayer, when presently we beheld a light above us in the air, of exceeding brightness; and behold, an angel stood before us. In his hands he held the plates which we had been praying for these to have a view of. He turned over the leaves one by one, so that we could see them, and discern the engravings thereon distinctly."

So, wait a minute. Joe had already started translating the plates. Couldn't the 4 just go look at them? Why was prayer necessary if the plates were, in fact, tangible? Did the plates actually exist as a physical object? Then LDS historians say Harris left the group because he felt his faith was too weak and he might inhibit the vision. Then it says the 3 left saw a vision of the plates, then went and found Harris. *The History of the Church* 1:55 says Smith "left David and Oliver and went in pursuit of Martin Harris, whom I found at a considerable distance fervently engaged in prayer." Both men joined in prayer, and according to Smith, "the same vision was opened to our view." Smith never claims to have carried the plates the woods where he and the 2 saw them, or carried the to where Harris was praying. And then the 4 of them saw the plates "in a vision."

So what did the 3 actually see? The story almost sounds like collusion about a religious fraud (probably the Russians!). Another LDS writer, Stephen Burnett, in 1838 wrote, "When I came to hear Martin Harris state in public that he never saw the plates with his natural eyes only in vision or imagination, neither Oliver nor David." Burnett also reported that Harris said he had "hefted the plates repeatedly in a box with only a tablecloth or handkerchief over them, but he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain."

There is testimony from several independent interviewers, all non-Mormon, that Martin Harris and David Whitmer said they saw the plates with their "spiritual eyes" only. Among others, A. Metcalf and John Gilbert, as well as Reuben P. Harmon and Jesse Townsend, gave testimonies to this effect. This is contradicted, however, by statements like that of David Whitmer in the Saints Herald in 1882, "these hands handled the plates, these eyes saw the angel." But Z. H. Gurley elicited from Whitmer a not so positive response to the question, "Did you touch them?" His answer was, "We did not touch nor handle the plates." (*Dialogue*, Vol.7, No.4, pp.83-84).

Something's fishy here. I wouldn't just so easily consider it "more historical than the latter."

[Farmer 77]

> You know there are deep questions about the legitimacy of the document ("The Testimony of the Three Witnesses"). The original doesn't exist.

This is true of the gospels. The earliest copies of this document are fundamentally the same as what we have today.

> The oldest copy that does exist has all three signatures by the same handwriting, assumed to be that of Oliver Cowdery.

If everyone knows the oldest copy is not the original, then wouldn't you expect the signatures to be in the same hand?

Regardless, if you suspect the signatures are not authorized, why didn't Harris and Whitmer (or even their families) contradict them? (This particular apologetic is also used to argue for the authenticity of the gospels.)

> And yet the golden plates give extensive quotations from the King James Bible (AD 1611). They contain anachronisms that could not have been known to its supposed author in AD 420.

They relay the same events, and when translated into english, the king james idioms were used. Any anachronistic references to animals are actually accurate, but your failure to find bones or other archeological evidence to support this claim are your fault. (This particular apologetic is also used to argue for the veracity of the Exodus account.)

> It puts words of Jesus (though often distorted) into the mouths of men alleged to have lived centuries before Christ.

Jesus is the true word of god, and he existed before all. (This is theological gobbledygook, and my answer uses different definitions for some of the words you used in your question. However, I assume it's okay since this is such a common technique in christian apologetics.)

>There is testimony from several independent interviewers, all non-Mormon, that Martin Harris and David Whitmer said they saw the plates with their "spiritual eyes" only

This is how Paul learned all of his teachings from Jesus. Precedent!

> Something's fishy here. I wouldn't just so easily consider it "more historical than the latter."

Now imagine that literacy in Joseph Smith's era was rare. What percentage of this anti-mormon testimony would never have been written? Imagine also that over two thousand years had passed since then, and that for a large portion of those millenia, the world was ruled by a mormon empire which violently suppressed heresy. Would you expect much of this anti-mormon evidence you've been citing to have survived, with provenance intact, if indeed it had ever been put to paper in the first place?

[jimwalton]

> This is true of the gospels.

Undeniable. The originals no longer exist. Even if they did, there would be no way for us to determine we were holding the original in our hands.

> If everyone knows the oldest copy is not the original, then wouldn't you expect the signatures to be in the same hand?

Sure, but now we can't be sure about the attestation of the other two witnesses. Hey, the guy could have signed as many "witness" signatures as he wanted (if he were disreputable).

> if you suspect the signatures are not authorized, why didn't Harris and Whitmer (or even their families) contradict them?

I'm not particularly suspicious. It's very possible that Harris and Witmer signed the original. I'm just observing what we have and what we don't.

> They relay the same events, and when translated into english, the king james idioms were used.

We have an anachronistic problem here. English didn't exist as a language in the 5th century, and when it did evolve, it certainly wasn't in 17th-c. form. Have you ever tried to read Beowulf, thought to have been written in the 7th century? It's a different language. There's no way King James English (quoted) was in a 5th-century document. It's not possible.

> Jesus is the true word of god, and he existed before all.

This is anachronistic and illegitimate argument as well. Jesus' words (what he spoke as a human) were unknown centuries before he spoke them. (It's ludicrous to claim this is a common technique among Christian apologists.)

> This is how Paul learned all of his teachings from Jesus. Precedent!

We don't really know how Paul learned his teachings from Jesus, so your precedent doesn't carry.

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

> Now imagine that literacy in Joseph Smith's era was rare.

Your analogy already fails. Palestine was more literate than the wider culture because the Jews valued reading and writing so that the study of the Torah could continue. Jesus, a carpenter, could both read and write. There are numerous evidences of general literacy in the region in the era:

- The letter from Babatha, and many common documents of normal business
- Minted coins with messages on them
- Many personal inscriptions on various and sundry articles
- Ossuary inscriptions
- Potsherds with school exercises on them
- Luke sought out reliable sources for his gospel
- Letters of Paul prove writing was current in the early decades of the church
- Zachariah wrote on a wax tablet (Lk. 1)
- The Pharisees, chief priests, and scribes were literate (Mt. 12.3, 5)

[Hazel]

Hey there, Jim, thanks for the detailed reply!

> The original doesn't exist. The oldest copy that does exist has all three signatures by the same handwriting, assumed to be that of Oliver Cowdery.

In every way, the corresponding evidence for the Annunciation seems much, much worse. We don't have the original manuscript for Luke, or anything near as good as what we have for the Three Witnesses testimony. By comparison, the documentary evidence for the Three Witnesses seems much stronger.

> And yet the golden plates give extensive quotations from the King James Bible (AD 1611). They contain anachronisms that could not have been known to its supposed author in AD 420.

This seems to be addressing the validity of the Book of Mormon, rather than the historicity of the miracles described.

> Joe had already started translating the plates. Couldn't the 4 just go look at them? Why was prayer necessary if the plates were, in fact, tangible?

Presumably the plates had been taken by the angel, and thus required permission from God in order to see both the angel and the plates. Joseph Smith claimed several times that the plates were occasionally taken away from him, and given back by the angel. Either way, none of these questions seems to dispute the visitation of the angel itself. (As a side note, the suggestion for the plates to simply be brought out and shown, without the angelic visitation, seems to be aptly fulfilled with the Testimony of the Eleven Witnesses, who experienced just that.)

[Questions on what it meant to see with your "spiritual eyes"...]

While I would certainly agree that the mysterious difference between seeing something "with your spiritual eyes" and "with your natural eyes" is a highly suspicious point of detail in religious claims in general, I don't see that the Annunciation has any more backing to it. The three witnesses to the angel's visitation to Joseph Smith may have occasionally given conflicting accounts of how they saw what they saw (including, as you pointed out, firm affirmations that they saw these events entirely naturally)... but this seems still to be a much, much better attestation that that of the Annunciation (where we are merely told that someone saw something, and are not even given even a second-hand account).

In other words, there doesn't seem to be any evidence at all that Mary would attest to seeing the Annunciation "with her natural eyes" and not "with her spiritual eyes". In fact the evidence seems much worse than that, as there is very little evidence that Mary claimed to have seen anything at all (much, much weaker than the claim of the 'Three Witnesses').

> Something's fishy here.

But there's nothing fishy about the Annunciation?

[jimwalton]

> In every way, the corresponding evidence for the Annunciation seems much, much worse.

To be responsible, we don't weigh the validity of Mormonism on this one document of the Three Witnesses. Neither do we weigh the validity of Christianity on the historical verifiability of the Annunciation. Just establishing that at the get go.

Luke, in general, turns out to be a rather accurate historian, and fairly well respected as such. Mormonism, however, has zero corroborative evidence, either archaeologically or in documentation. While the **documentary** evidence for the Three Witnesses is reasonable, so also is the documentary evidence for the whole book of Luke.

> This seems to be addressing the validity of the Book of Mormon, rather than the historicity of the miracles described.

It is. The Book of Mormon fails at every level of historical analysis and corroboration, and the story of the Three Witnesses is part of the authorized preface of the book.

> Presumably the plates had been taken by the angel...

As I said, something just seems so fishy here.

> I don't see that the Annunciation has any more backing to it.

I believe in angels as spiritual beings. I've never seen one, but I believe the stories about them. There are so many stories about angels.

Let's talk about the annunciation. If there were no angelic visitation and no divine conception, then let's face it: Mary was screwing around with somebody and tried to cover it up with this wild story, playing on people's superstitions (Hey, lots of people claim to see angels!).

But when you stop to think about it, both Matthew and Luke are firm on a virginal conception, but it doesn't help their case. To the contrary, it makes their story less credible. They have nothing to gain from making up such a thing. It only made their writing look mythological.

Matthew was trying to present a case that Jesus was of the line of David. He even starts his Gospel with "Jesus, son of David..." It hurts his case to claim that Joseph wasn't involved in the conception. Jewish messianic expectation included David descent, so no one was expecting a virginal conception.

There is sparse but consistent evidence from ancient non-Christian sources about the recurring tradition that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus. But if these writers don't buy into the virgin birth, they claim Jesus was conceived out of wedlock (see especially Origin, quoting Celsus, in *Contra Celsum* 1.32). Dr. Craig Blomberg says, "Here a Roman soldier with a name like Pandera or Panthera is alleged to have been Jesus' father, but these names look suspiciously like corrupt forms of *parthenos*, the Greek word for virgin. Obviously, non-Christian sources would doubt the biblical account and assume the word for virgin meant something else, like a man's name. Among modern skeptics the common charge is that the Gospel writers followed a standard pattern of honoring and deifying great heroes by inventing accounts of their supernatural conception. But on closer inspection, no such pattern actually exists."

Traditional Jewish monotheism would have ABHORRED the notion of a story about God replacing a human male in the act of conception. The virgin birth certainly didn't win Jewish friends.

Since Isaiah 7.14 was not understood to predict a virginal conception, there was little reason for Matthew to invent it.

A virginal conception went against reason and known biology, even at the time. They didn't understand what we know about gynecology, but they knew it took two to tango.

It even does little to Christian religious tradition to claim that Jesus was born of a virgin. His virgin birth is never tied in, by Scripture, to his sinlessness or anything else. As a matter of fact, it never comes up again in Scripture. It's almost a non-factor, and yet it's there. Why? There as nothing to gain from such a teaching, unless they were just reporting what happened.

I can see what is to be gained from the Testimony of the Three Witnesses: Joseph is not psychotic; the golden tablets really do exist! There was motive to communicate this story if it were true or to make it up it were not, to communicate credibility.

There is no such benefit to the annunciation story. And what does Mary have to gain by perpetrating such a story? Among the general public, scorn and derision. Among the believers, nothing. No one expected a virginal conception, and the issue never comes up again in the Bible. It doesn't actually become a big deal until about AD 432 by the Catholic Church, but she wasn't formally recognized by the RC Church until 1854. Her assumption at death was made a dogma in 1950 (though the belief started in the early 6th century).

We can surmise what might have motivated Smith to perpetrate a lie; we can't do the same with the Annunciation. I'd be glad to hear your thoughts.

[Farmer 77]

> Undeniable. The originals no longer exist. Even if they did, there would be no way for us to determine we were holding the original in our hands.

Great. So when criticizing the Testimony as being less well-attested than the gospel, why bring up a red herring like this? I'm trying to be charitable and come up with a reason to bring that up that isn't disingenuous, but it sounds like you just torpedoed my attempt. Help me out here.

> I'm not particularly suspicious. It's very possible that Harris and Witmer signed the original. I'm just observing what we have and what we don't.

And yet you started off that "observation" with "there are deep questions about the legitimacy of the document". So this recent disclaimer of yours comes off a little confusing. Are these "deep questions" relevant, if, being aware of them, you aren't even "particularly suspicious"?

> We have an anachronistic problem here. English didn't exist as a language in the 5th century, and when it did evolve, it certainly wasn't in 17th-c. form.

Remember, the plates weren't written in english. I pointed out that they were translated, by smith, who was intimately familiar with the king james forms. With that in mind, how is this a response to my criticism? It seems you're pointing out things I acknowledged as if they are defeaters.

> This is anachronistic and illegitimate argument as well. Jesus' words (what he spoke as a human) were unknown centuries before he spoke them. (It's ludicrous to claim this is a common technique among Christian apologists.)

Ludicrous? I'll grant that it's a ludicrous technique, but I've heard it pretty often. I'll drop it if you want, there's no need to debate about what other christians do. I'll just make a note that you're willing to help me argue against any christian who uses this technique.

Instead, I'll switch arguments - Jesus made a habit of quoting men who pre-existed him. Who's to say, and who cares, which human uttered which phrases first? Jesus, as an aspect of the omniscient creator, would certainly have been aware of the sayings of these men of god who predated him.

> We don't really know how Paul learned his teachings from Jesus, so your precedent doesn't carry.

"But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ."

Methinks thou doth ironically misquote shakespeare a little prematurely, and with a hilarious lack of awareness about what the original quote was even saying.

> Palestine was more literate than the wider culture because the Jews valued reading and writing so that the study of the Torah could continue

And yet it was far, far less literate than contemporary america. I didn't mean to imply that it was vanishingly rare, but it was relatively rare, and for the most part concentrated among the upper classes. Keeping in mind that most of the apostles were from the lower classes, as were many of the early followers of christianity.

> Jesus, a carpenter, could both read and write

And yet nothing he wrote survived. Inconvenient! Even so, exceptions to a general rule do not disprove it.

>The letter from Babatha
An upper class woman who owned property.
Minted coins with messages on them

Whaaaaaat the f***? Unless the majority of the population is minting coins, this is a ridiculous thing to bring up. Do you think people need to be able to read the words on a coin in order to spend it? What does this have to do with the literacy of the population?

> Potsherds with school exercises on them

Schools were not invented in 0th century Judea. Just because some people learned to write does not mean literacy was widespread.

> Luke sought out reliable sources for his gospel

Were these sources personal, or literary? Luke didn't say, so it seems pretty deceptive to include this in a list.

> The Pharisees, chief priests, and scribes were literate (Mt. 12.3, 5)

It's just ridiculous to include this bullet point unless you're trying to cow me with volume. Yes, obviously the cultural elites, and scribes, have always been literate. Are you arguing against the position that literacy was confined to just several people? Is that what you thought I meant?

Still, we have plenty of writing from older cultures, and from less literate cultures. None of this disproves my point, and it especially does nothing against the revised point with more precise language that I will repeat here: literacy was relatively rare, and for the most part concentrated among the upper classes.

[jimwalton]

> "there are deep questions about the legitimacy of the document"

Good point. I can see how I was coming across. I didn't start off with a bias, but just with curiosity, so "no suspicion." But the more I researched, the more problems kept arising about the document, so a growing confusion. In the end, some deep questions about the legitimacy of the document. I haven't really come to a conclusion yet, because I don't feel like I know enough about it to do that. So suspicious at this point yet undecided. Is that more clear?

> Remember, the plates weren't written in english. I pointed out that they were translated, by smith, who was intimately familiar with the king james forms. With that in mind, how is this a response to my criticism?

You're right. I'll grant this point. Sometimes I don't read as thoroughly as I should.

> "We don't really know how Paul learned his teachings from Jesus" ... but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Yes, what I meant was that we don't know if it was a vision, an actual (visible to the physical eye) appearance, an audible voice, undeniably divine thoughts, or what. That's what I meant. We don't really know how Jesus communicated these truths to him.

> Methinks thou doth ironically misquote shakespeare a little prematurely, and with a hilarious lack of awareness about what the original quote was even saying

Not at all. It was in Hamlet. I said it because you seem to working so hard to discredit everything I say and to cavalierly relegate to the kind of drivel characteristic of those silly and shallow apologists. It seemed to me that you were perhaps indulging in a little insincere overacting, but if I'm wrong or perceived inaccurately, I apologize.

> Babatha, coins, potsherds, etc.

Just examples of a somewhat literate section of the Empire. My point was that literacy was more common in Palestine than in the general populace, a point to which I still hold. Degrees of literacy vary. In an article from the Biblical Archaeology Review ("Literacy in the Time of Jesus" by Alan Millard, July/Aug 2003), Millard writes "the evidence showing that reading and writing were widely practiced in Jesus' age grows with every discovery of a new inscription. Much of this evidence comes from religious and governmental circles, but a great deal of it does not. There are deeds of debt (even an archival building in Jerusalem to house legal documents), evidences of written public notices in Greek put up in Jerusalem, stone inscriptions with warnings on them (one would have to be able to read to be expected to heed the warning), potsherds with alphabet exercises written on them (at Masada and other places). And then, of course, all the Dead Sea Scrolls.

> Were these sources personal, or literary? Luke didn't say, so it seems pretty deceptive to include this in a list.

Based on the general literacy of the area, the assumption is plausible.

> It's just ridiculous to include this bullet point unless you're trying to cow me with volume.

No, just part of the case.

Pilate wrote Jesus' accusation on the cross. What's the value if people couldn't read? And then the Jewish leaders protested—I assume from that they expected that people would be able to read it and might be misled.

The statement that literacy was confined to just several people (or just the literary elite) is no longer supported by the evidence.

[Hazel]

Hey there, Jim, thanks for the reply!

My gut reaction responses to your points...

> Mormonism, however, has zero corroborative evidence, either archaeologically or in documentation.

I think you are confusing the history of the Mormon church with the veracity of the Book of Mormon. The history of the Mormon church is much better documented than Luke, to the point where I feel like it's a little silly to compare them. We have the writings of Joseph Smith, the writings of his mother, the writings of all three witnesses, an literally hundreds of people who directly saw and spoke to them. Archeologically speaking, it's no contest: we have multiple artifacts known to have been owned by the people involved, and most of the cities they mention are still existing. We don't have anything close to that, when it comes to the author of Luke, or the events he describes.

> We can surmise what might have motivated Smith to perpetrate a lie; we can't do the same with the Annunciation.

I really don't see how you can say that. There were four people involved with the angel visitation in 1829 - you'd need to come up with reasonable motivations for all of them to lie (and to carry this lie to their graves, even after leaving the church).

Compare this to the author of Luke. We know so little about him that it seems silly to say we can safely rule out invention on their part. Their motivations could have been...

1. They never intended the gospel to be taken as history.
2. They wanted to emphasize the divinity of Jesus.
3. The virgin birth was already an established belief in the church, and they wanted to support it.
4. They believed the minority interpretation that the Messiah would be born of a virgin, and wanted to promote this interpretation.
5. They had Jesus born of a virgin to promote a theological point. Etc. Of course, perhaps most likely of all is that the author of Luke didn't make it up, but was simply reporting a story that he heard from someone else.

It seems that it's far easier to come up with motivations for one theological author to make up a story, than for four eye-witnesses.

[jimwalton]

> I think you are confusing the history of the Mormon church with the veracity of the Book of Mormon.

True. Thank you for the correction. We do have good evidence for the existence of Joseph Smith, for instance. No argument there.

What I meant by archaeology, though, is that there is no archaeological evidence for anything the Book of Mormon claims about the presence of these people groups and cities in North America. By contrast, however, there is abundant evidence for the things claimed by Luke (Herod, John the Baptist, the Temple, the priesthood, Caesar Augustus, Bethlehem, Nazareth, and hundreds more).

> I think you are confusing the history of the Mormon church with the veracity of the Book of Mormon.

In response, I don't see how YOU can say THIS. Isn't it interesting how we see things so differently?

- He obviously intended his account to be taken as history (Lk. 1.1-4)
- A virgin birth doesn't emphasize Jesus' divinity. No biblical author ever makes that claim or connection.
- The virgin birth was not already an established belief, except that they believed it because it was a historical fact.
- There was no expectation that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. Isaiah 7.14 was not perceived as a Messianic prophecy.
- The virgin birth of Jesus doesn't promote any theological points. No biblical author ever makes anything of it. None develop it. None create a theology around it. It is merely reported by Matthew and Luke, and left behind.