vs.
A couple of weeks ago, I finished reading Robert M. Bowman’s, Jesus' Resurrection and Joseph's Visions: Examining the Foundations of Christianity and Mormonism—a book I had ordered after discovering its existence during my recent studies into Joseph Smith’s 'First Vision’ (see this thread). I completed the book the day after it arrived, and became resolved to publish a post to bring the tome to the attention of AF readers; but before doing so, thought it prudent to order a book Bowman had referenced that I had yet to read: Steven C. Harper's First Vision: Memory and Mormon Origins.
It took me over a week to read Harper’s heavily referenced tome—nearly 700 notes—spending hours each day checking a number of the works referenced, completing the book itself this last Tuesday morning. These two recent works clearly have diametrically opposing views concerning Joseph Smith's 'First Vision', though both authors acknowledge the importance of this event concerning the origins of the LDS Church. With this in mind, I would now like to share some musings on both tomes, beginning with Bowman’s contribution.
Bowman’s book is in a sense two books—the first half being a solid defense of the historicity of Jesus Christ’s physical resurrection from the dead; and the second half, a negative critique of Joseph Smith’s visions. From the publishers website, we read:
Just as the resurrection of Jesus is the foundation of Christianity, the visions of Joseph Smith are the foundation of Mormonism. In Jesus’ Resurrection and Joseph’s Visions, Robert Bowman compares the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection with the evidence for Joseph’s visions, showing how the historical data confirm the truth of Jesus’ resurrection, and that the accounts of Joseph Smith’s visions are historically unreliable. For Mormons who have doubts about their religion, this study will help them find a more reliable basis for faith in Christ. For Christians, this study provides a fresh angle on the historical evidence for the truth of Christianity. (link)
As related above, the first half is a solid, treatment defending Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead as a historical reality. It confronts the various theories that have been advanced by skeptics and non-Christians in their attempt to explain away the New Testament’s and early Church Fathers’ affirmation of the resurrection event. An important aspect of Bowman's defense is the use and referencing of a number of recent, full-length works that focus on the historicity of Jesus' resurrection by internationally recognized scholars—e.g. William Lane Craig, Craig Evans, Craig Keener, Michael Licona, Lydia and Timothy McGrew, N. T. Wright—scholars I have a good deal of respect for. After focusing on the Gospel accounts, Bowman then provides an entire chapter (#4) on, “Jesus’ Appearances to Paul”.
With that said—though I personally believe that the first half of the book offers a pretty good defense—I sincerely doubt that it will persuade skeptics and non-Christians to reverse their denial of Jesus’ Christ physical resurrection from dead as a historical reality.
But then, Christians who have been troubled by some of the recent attacks by atheists, agnostics, and liberals—e.g. Richard Carrier, John Dominic Crossan, Bart Ehrman, John Shelby Spong—on Jesus’ resurrection, will undoubtedly find this section of significant value.
As for the second half, I have mixed feelings. I cannot help but conclude that this section begins with the presupposition that Joseph Smith’s visions did not happen. As such, even though Bowman gives the impression that his evaluation of evidence is objective, it clearly is not. In the introduction, he admits that in, “the broadest sense of the term Christianity, Mormonism is a type of Christianity” (p. 13). But, he follows this up with, “in the somewhat narrower sense used in this book, Mormonism is not a type of Christianity” (ibid.).
Bowman clearly has two differing approaches concerning the historicity of Jesus Christ’s resurrection and Joseph Smith's visions. But with that said, I still believe the second half still has value—especially for those folk who are unaware of the large amount of interest/research that has been taking place concerning a number of historical events that Joseph Smith related, which include: the ‘first vision’, Moroni’s visitations, and the ‘gold’ plates containing the Book of Mormon which he ‘translated'. Bowman’s footnotes demonstrate that he is up to date on the literature that has recently been produced concerning Smith’s claims—both pro and con. The major weakness of this section is his quick dismissal of a number of the solid contributions produced by LDS scholars, especially concerning the ‘first vision’. Concluding assessment: despite its weaknesses, I still think the book is worth reading.
As for Harper’s book, if one has the time to read only one contribution concerning the issue of the ‘first vision’, this is THE book to read. Though the author is LDS, he does not avoid ANY of the controversial issues concerning this topic.
In addition to the Introduction and “Afterword”, the book consists of twenty-eight concise chapters, divided into three parts. Part I, “Joseph Smith’s Memory”, deals with the Smith’s accounts of the ‘first vision’. Part II, “Collective Memory”, delves into how others related the ‘first vision’. It includes an interesting aspect that I do not recall reading of before—it was Orson Pratt who first used the phrase “the first vision” to describe Smith’s 1820 vision of the Father and the Son. Part III, “Contested Memory” examines the negative treatments of the ‘first vision’, and the types of reactions to them. Chapter twenty-seven relates the curious case of Jeremy Runnells. Runnells is the author of the infamous 'CES Letter'. What amazes me about Runnells’ case is that in 2012 he claimed that: “I did not know that there are multiple first vision accounts” (p. 239). Runnells before his apostasy from the LDS Church “was a lifelong Latter-day Saint and ‘fully believing’ former missionary.” What I find interesting is the fact that I fully knew about the multiple first vision accounts in the late 1980s. My knowledge of the multiple accounts came via easily available LDS sources—e.g. Milton Backman’s, Joseph Smith’s First Vision (1971, 1980), Paul Cheesman’s, The Keystone of Mormonism – Early Visions of the Prophet Joseph Smith (1988), BYU Studies Volume 9.3 (Spring 1969). The multiple accounts have never troubled me, which really makes me wonder why they bothered Runnells so much.
Moving on, Harper’s book is published by Oxford University Press. It is a scholarly work, but a readable one. If one ignores the footnotes, and just reads the main body of the book, it can easily be read in just a few hours. But if one delves into the footnotes as I did, it will take days to finish—I feel fully rewarded for doing so.
In ending, I want to relate that I am quite disappointed that Bowman did not interact with Harper’s book in any real depth—his treatment of it being little more than a mention of the tome. I am going to be on the lookout for future, scholarly dialogue on this informative contribution…
Grace and peace,
David
14 comments:
David, your claim at the end of your post that my book did little more than mention Harper's book is simply false. Harper is the main LDS author whose view I engaged in the last part of my chapter on the First Vision (specifically pages 258-59, 262-64). This was a fairly substantial engagement with his book, especially considering that my book has just the one chapter on the First Vision. I notice that you do not even mention the issue I addressed that Harper discussed in his book.
Also, your claim that I take two different approaches to the historicity of Jesus' resurrection and Joseph's visions is incorrect. I use the same historical methods of inquiry and apply the same standards of evidence to both cases. Yes, I reach different conclusions about the two cases, but the method or approach is the same. For example, I don't presuppose that miracles could happen in the first century but not in the nineteenth; I don't excuse minor apparent discrepancies in the Gospels but treat similar problems in the First Vision accounts as fatal problems.
Hello Robert,
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts on my post. You wrote:
==David, your claim at the end of your post that my book did little more than mention Harper's book is simply false. Harper is the main LDS author whose view I engaged in the last part of my chapter on the First Vision (specifically pages 258-59, 262-64). This was a fairly substantial engagement with his book, especially considering that my book has just the one chapter on the First Vision.==
It seems that we disagree over what “little more" means. First, “little more than mention of the tome" does not mean 'only mentions the tome". Second, your referencing of “pages 258-59, 262-64” will probably be interpreted by folk who have not read your book that you have devoted five pages to Harper’s scholarly tome; but the actual amount, when combined, is slightly less than two pages, in a space and one-half format. It is difficult for me to concur with your assessment that two pages constitutes, "a fairly substantial engagement with his book". So, at this time, I suppose we left with ‘agreeing to disagree’ over what “little more” and “substantial” means.
Moving on, I shall remain on the lookout for an in depth treatment(s) on Harper’s tome. Given the fact that you wrote, “LDS prophets have repeatedly asserted that the truth of their religion stands or falls on the truth of the First Vision" (p. 223), and that Steven Harper is, "today's leading Mormon scholar on the First Vision" (pp. 258, 259), I hope that you will consider undertaking such a task.
Grace and peace,
David
David, most of Harper's book is irrelevant to my topic, which is the question of the historicity of Joseph's visions. Indeed, Harper in effect punts on the question, taking the position that we cannot really know what happened as a matter of historical inquiry. "This is not a book for those interested in determining whether the vision actually happened, and if so whether it was in 1820 or 1824, or which of Smith’s vision memories is more authentic or accurate than others" (Harper, p. 3). That made most of his book interesting background information. The only historical claim that Harper makes (inconsistently) is that Joseph had told a Methodist minister about his First Vision soon after it happened. Other than that, the one historical fact that Harper acknowledges is the negative fact that Joseph was not persecuted in the 1820s for telling others the First Vision story! I do address these points in my chapter on the First Vision.
Hello again Robert,
Thanks for your quick response to my comment. You wrote:
==David, most of Harper's book is irrelevant to my topic, which is the question of the historicity of Joseph's visions. Indeed, Harper in effect punts on the question, taking the position that we cannot really know what happened as a matter of historical inquiry. "This is not a book for those interested in determining whether the vision actually happened, and if so whether it was in 1820 or 1824, or which of Smith’s vision memories is more authentic or accurate than others" (Harper, p. 3).==
I do not wish to be combative, but I do want to understand Harper’s above referenced comment within the context of the whole book. Many of the early chapters of the book focus on the extant written accounts that mention the event that has come to be known as the “First Vision’ (a phrase most likely coined by Orson Pratt in 1849). In fact, chapters 2-8 delve into the various accounts recorded between 1832 and 1842. At the very least, it seems to me that these chapters are relevant to the question of the historicity of Joseph’s ‘First Vision’, for those accounts are relating an event that was deemed to be a historical reality.
Have I missed something?
Grace and peace,
David
David, yes, Harper discusses those written accounts, but he explicitly says that he is examining them as evidence for what Joseph (and, later, his associates) remembered or thought about the First Vision, and not as evidence for (or against) the historicity of the First Vision as a factual event.
Hence, he presents his book as an exercise in "memory studies." he explains that memory studies "long ago stopped asking 'how accurately a recollection fitted some piece of a past reality' and started investigating 'why historical actors constructed their memories in a particular way at a particular time'" (2). He goes on:
"Expecting autobiographical memories—that is, memories recollected about one’s own life—to be either accurate or inaccurate is a false dilemma…. The historian’s tools are unfit for the task of determining the veracity of Smith’s first vision; however, they are well suited to evaluate the culture of his vision memories…. This book, therefore, does not engage the event itself (which cannot be accessed by historians), but the recorded memories of it (which can)" (3, 4).
Harper does not maintain this distinction consistently throughout the book -- he allows himself the prerogative of defending the First Vision against criticisms in places -- but overall the book is not about whether the First Vision is a factual event of history. He says so explicitly up front.
Good morning Robert,
I read your latest response last night before going to bed, and pondered over what you had written before falling asleep. Two thoughts came to mind, the first pertains to the following you referenced:
>>This book, therefore, does not engage the event itself (which cannot be accessed by historians), but the recorded memories of it (which can)>>
The same can be said for many of the events that are recorded in the Bible; events, “which cannot be accessed by historians". Two events in particular came to mind last night: the resurrection of "many bodies of the saints" who then went into Jerusalem and “appeared to many” (Matt. 27:52, 53). This incredible event was mentioned only by Matthew, and has no verification in any other known written account. The second event that came to mind was the resurrection of Lazarus, another incredible event, and like the Matthew event, recorded by only one author—the apostle John.
Non-believers (and even some who claim to be followers of Christ) do not believe these events occurred. It seems to me that the so-called ‘First Vision’ has common elements with the above two events—e.g. only one author writes about the event, and no other sources exist which could assist in collaborating the event.
The second thought that came to mind last night was a review I had read shortly after publishing the opening post of this thread:
Memory and Millennials
I reread this review this morning. Though I had recalled that Marsh had deduced some similar conclusions that I had arrived at, I had completely forgotten that he had quoted the same reference you have placed a good deal of emphasis on.
I noticed that Marsh’s review was not included in the online bibliography you have published—have you read this review? If so, I would be interested in your thoughts on what Marsh has written.
Grace and peace,
David
David,
My point was that the reason my chapter on the First Vision did not engage Harper's book more than it did was that Harper's book was not a defense of the historicity of the First Vision. Since my chapter was focused on the question of historicity, that made most of Harper's book of only indirect relevance at most.
I actually delayed publication of my book in order to read through and process Harper's book, so for that reason I could not have read any reviews of Harper's book before sending my manuscript to the publisher. I have not read the Interpreter review yet.
The two events you mention in the Gospels are not especially relevant parallels to the First Vision in regards to the potential for evidence concerning their historicity. Unlike those two events, the First Vision is presented in LDS teaching as the foundational event of the LDS religion. Moreover, Joseph made subsidiary historical claims in his official narrative of the First Vision that can be tested, especially the claims about the revival and his years of intense persecution due to telling others about the vision. And of course we have multiple accounts of the origins of the LDS movement from Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and later from others, all of which can be compared with one another and with the available facts. That's what I did in my chapter on the First Vision.
David, I appreciate the courteous manner of your review and these follow-up comments. Thanks for the interaction.
Hello David and Robert,
Interesting discussion. I am not sure comparing a vision Joseph Smith had with the resurrection of Christ is quite a fair comparison.
I guess I would also say that David’s reference to VOLUMES of folks rising from the dead and walking around Jerusalem AND Lazarus rising from the dead are not the proper comparison, but could be used to illustrate some important “issues.”
Before I TRY to flesh this out let me see if I have gleaned why Robert says Joseph’s visions are the proper comparison to Christ’s resurrection. I think what he is saying is that Christians (LDS and non-LDS Christians) point to the resurrection as a foundational event for Christianity. And that LDS point to the First Vision as a foundation event for the CoJCoLDS. I hope that is correct?
I can see how this could be a reason to focus on them as Robert has, but I think it is more apples to oranges than apples to apples and this is why.
All Christians believed that Jesus lived, was crucified, and rose from the dead. All Christians believe that if a powerful telescope was pointing at Jerusalem from about 2000 light years away it could capture on video events in Christ’s walk around Jerusalem. These are either real events in history or they are fabricated events in history. Visions potentially (even likely) are not real events in history. As such to use the tools of history to make a judgment about the veracity of visions is flawed from the start AND certainly not a good comparison. It would seem to me that Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus would be the more historically viable comparison. I think Joseph’s vision stands up well to this.
If the telescope was recording Paul, it may or may not see the “light.” If the audio was recorded then it may or may not be heard (as Paul’s companions may or may not have heard it). If the telescope was watching Paul’s companions may or may not have fallen to the ground. And we have no data as to who the companions were or what they reported. In fact, we don’t believe we have ANY info from Paul directly only stuff from the author of Acts.
If the telescope was recording Joseph, it may or may not have seen light and personages (one or two we might point out) talking to Joseph, but we have no conflicting reports from other humans who were present because there were none. It could have been Spirit communing with Spirit or it could have been a physical encounter that the telescope might see. And it was important enough that Joseph did speak about it in his writings and to others (unlike Paul who we may charitably believe relayed it to the author of Acts).
I would suggest that Joseph’s visions are better supported than Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus, but I don’t think any of us would like to say we reject Paul’s vision.
Concerning the rising of MANY folks from the dead and there wandering around Jerusalem, this surely would be quite a sight to see. It doesn’t seem to have an impact upon ANYTHING surviving to today. The tools of history if required to render a conclusion I believe would say this did not happen. But, if these folks didn’t rise up and walk around then the Bible is not inerrant which undermines a number of Christian faith commitments. I guess my point here is that while I do not personally think the sword of history has done much damage to Joseph’s vision, I think the sword of history would make short work of some things that seem essential to much of Christianity.
I suspect there are many problems with the above and David and Robert will be able to point them out, but those were my initial thoughts.
Charity, TOm
Tom, thank you for your interesting comments.
My book compares the evidence pertaining to Jesus' resurrection appearances in the New Testament, especially the one to Saul (Paul), to the evidence pertaining to the visions reported by Joseph Smith, especially the appearance of the Father and the Son in 1820. A whole chapter is devoted to Paul's first vision and a corresponding chapter is devoted to Joseph's first vision. The first chapter of my book explains the rationale behind the study. The first person to compare Joseph's first vision to Paul's was Joseph himself (see JS-H 1:24-25). Various LDS authors, including Richard Lloyd Anderson and John Tvedtnes, have used the comparison to defend the historicity of Joseph's claim. And yes, LDS leaders have repeatedly argued that the First Vision was the foundation of the LDS movement and compared it specifically to the resurrection of Jesus as the foundation of Christianity.
The matter of what one would see or hear if one were given the opportunity to train a video camera of some kind on the people who reportedly saw Jesus after his resurrection is an interesting question. I agree that the recordings would have shown Jesus talking with Mary Magdalene, Peter, the apostles, and so on, but probably would not have shown Jesus in clear form during his appearance to Saul on the road to Damascus. However, such a recording would surely have shown Saul on the road to Damascus, and it would have shown him falling to the ground and speaking to Christ. Based on a careful exegesis of the texts in Acts, such a recording would even show that there was some sort of light and a sound coming from the light, without the person of Jesus or his words being distinct enough to observe. I discuss all of these matters in my book, though without using the "telescope" or video camera analogy.
More importantly, even without a video recording of the past events, we have ways of testing the non-visionary elements of the accounts of the disciples and of Paul in the New Testament, as well as testing the non-visionary elements of the accounts of Joseph's visions (both the First Vision and his other foundational visionary stories). In the case of Paul, we can test his claim that he was a persecutor of the church before Christ appeared to him. We can also examine Paul's conduct after the reported vision to see if it is consistent with his claim. In the case of Joseph, we can test his claim that his first vision was precipitated by a local revival and the fighting among denominations for converts, as well as his claim that immediately following that vision and for many years thereafter he was incessantly persecuted for telling people about the vision (the context of his comparing his vision to Paul's). We can also examine Joseph's conduct after the reported vision to see if it is consistent with his claim. I make the case in my book that we have good evidence to support the non-visionary elements of Paul's story (as well as that of the women witnesses and the apostles) and good evidence to deny the non-visionary elements of Joseph's story.
The Book of Acts clearly presents its author as a traveling companion of Paul's on some of his missionary journeys (in the famous "we" passages). Thus, the author (Luke) would have had direct access to Paul in order to obtain from him a narrative of the events concerning Christ's appearance to him on the road to Damascus. In my book, I discuss reasons to accept Luke's account as historically reliable.
The one reference in the New Testament to the bodies of the saints being raised when Jesus died on the cross (Matt. 27:52-53) is so brief and so cryptic that there is considerable debate about what it means, let alone whether it reports an actual event. On the traditional understanding of its meaning, yes, it would have been quite a sight, but we read the passage anachronistically if we think that this event would have had the sort of impact it would have in today's world. The fact that we don't have any information about the consequences of the event beyond the fleeting comment of Matthew makes the event untestable. Yes, if one adheres to biblical inerrancy, and if one thinks the test asserts something as factual that did not in fact happen, that would be a blow to biblical inerrancy, but there are some rather big "ifs" there. I don't know anyone whose Christian faith would be toppled if it turned out that Matthew meant something different from what it sounds like he meant, or even if it turned out that Matthew did claim a miracle happened that in fact did not happen. That's because this "resurrection of the saints" is not a foundational event in Christianity, as is the resurrection of Jesus. Knocking Christianity on the grounds of doubts about this mysterious and brief account would be comparable to knocking Mormonism on the grounds of doubts about any one of the many alleged visionary experiences of Joseph or his associates that are only mentioned once in passing in this or that primary source. I wouldn't mount a case against the LDS religion on such a basis, nor would I be fazed by an argument against Christianity on such a basis.
The resurrection of Lazarus is a different matter. In this instance there is no dispute about what the text means. It clearly claims to be reporting a miracle of literal resurrection from the dead involving a friend of Jesus during his mortal ministry. The narrative is lengthy, specific, detailed, and straightforward. There is certainly no historical evidence against the account in John 11, nor is there (in my view) any simple or clear line of argument to defend the historicity of this particular miracle. One's acceptance of the event as historical will depend on one's general assessment of the historical value of the Gospel of John. Of course, if one just sets aside John (which I would not), we still have abundant evidence that Jesus performed miracles (we even have multiple references to him raising the dead) and that Jesus himself rose from the dead.
Hello Tom and Robert,
It has been a busy day for me, but I finally have some time for the internet and my blog. I was pleasantly surprised to see both of you posting some very interesting comments.
Tom, it is so good to see you back at AF. It has been a few months (if memory serves me correctly) since this blog has benefited from your unique insights.
Robert, I did not respond to your May 31st post, for it seemed like a bit of a ‘farewell’ to me. But with that said, I am quite pleased that you have returned to respond to Tom’s musings.
Now, I would like to focus on the following that Tom wrote:
== I am not sure comparing a vision Joseph Smith had with the resurrection of Christ is quite a fair comparison.==
I see that Robert has provided some comments concerning the “rationale behind the study” that compares Joseph’s visions and Jesus’ resurrection. But before I share some of my own thoughts on this issue, I want to go back and read some of the germane sections from Robert’s book, and the referenced sources therein. (This may take some time, so it might be tomorrow before I get my response up.)
Grace and peace,
David
P.S. For those folk who may have an interest in this discussion, but have yet to read Robert’s book, I would like to recommend the following article:
Comparing Paul’s Witness to the Resurrection to Joseph Smith’s Visions
As I noted in my earlier June 3, 2021 – 1:44 PM post, I want to focus on the following from Tom’s post:
==I am not sure comparing a vision Joseph Smith had with the resurrection of Christ is quite a fair comparison.==
I concur with this assessment. An important reason for my agreement with Tom is the fact that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a non-negotiable dogma/tenant of most non-LDS Christians, and ALL members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Interestingly enough, Robert clearly acknowledges the importance of the resurrection of Jesus Christ to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Note the following:
“Mormonism without question affirms the reality and importance of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead.” (Jesus Resurrection and Joseph’s Visions., p. 16)
Robert then provides selections from Joseph Smith Jr. and Harold B. Lee; first, Joseph Smith:
>>The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again on the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.>> (Ibid. p. 17)
And then:
>>LDS prophet Harold B. Lee affirmed that “the greatest event in the history of the world” was “the literal resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior of Mankind.”>> (Ibid. p. 17)
If we accept what Joseph said, one must then conclude that the ‘First Vision’ is not a ‘fundamental principle’ in the same sense as the resurrection of Jesus.
This does not mean that the ‘First Vision’ does not hold high importance in the LDS paradigm; but it does mean that it is not on the same level as the resurrection of Jesus. This sure seems to lend credence to Tom’s above assessment.
Later in the same post, Tom wrote:
==I would suggest that Joseph’s visions are better supported than Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus, but I don’t think any of us would like to say we reject Paul’s vision.==
I would like to suggest that a comparison between Joseph’s ‘First Vision’ and Paul’s ‘First Vision’ is a ‘fair’ comparison; and that both ‘visions’ are on a dogmatic/fundamental level below the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Robert does in fact examine the two ‘visions’—both in his article and book—providing ‘fair’ level for comparison between the two.
With this in mind, the question that I have is this: does Joseph Smith’s ‘First Vision’ have as much support for its truthfulness as Paul’s? Robert adamantly says NO, whilst a number of LDS scholars say YES.
As for this beacbum, I am currently of the opinion that support for the two visions are pretty much equal.
Grace and peace,
David
P.S. For an interesting comparison from an LDS perspective, see Richard Lloyd Anderson’s, “Parallel Prophets”, found in the following link:
Ensign – April, 1985
[Note: Robert quotes a portion Anderson’s article in his book (p.27), and his article (p. 1).]
Because of his reported dabbling in the dark arts, it would not surprise me if Joseph Smith should have had some kind of noteworthy religious experience which was very meaningful for him and those who have been his disciples. Those of us who hold that Satan disguises himself as an angel of light (I Cor. 11:13, 14), should not necessarily be compelled to provide naturalistic explanations for religious phemenomena that has been interpreted by LDS, Muslims, or others as coming from God.
I am not as familiar with the life of Muhammed as I am of Joseph Smith, but both religions claim that their Scriptures could not have been written naturally by the human instruments that they think God used. Is it necessary that we find naturalistic explanantions for the Koan and Book of Mormon as well? I do not know why we could not attribute these writings to the devil. In any event, from my perspective as a Catholic, the devil has used the Koran and the Book of Mormon to convince many souls to accept one or the other of these two significant restorationist movements by convincing them that it is impossible for Muhammed or Joseph to have accomplished their writings without extraordinary help.
I am not taking sides for Robert or Tom on this matter of natural or not. I am not qualified. I am only saying that if Tom is correct, and he seems to make some good points, that it does not prove the LDS Restoration to have been founded on truths from God.
To just touch upon one parallel that LDS and Muslims share, their founders seemed ill equipped to deal with the Christianity which was present in their own day. The orthodox Jew cannot complain, in my opinion, that the Christians of the Apostolic Age were ignorant about the teachings of Judaism. I think this is one of the reasons why it was important for Christianity that Saul, became the Apostle Paul. Who was Muhammed's "Apostle Paul", who could explain to him how the Christians believed that Christ had two natures, and so of course He needed food and rest to sustain His human nature. Sometimes, I get the feeling that Joseph Smith wasn't well catechized either and could have benefited from his own "Apostle Paul". I could be mistaken about that but I have at least one reason for having my doubts which I could discuss later if there is any interest. It has to do with what seem like mistaken assumptions in the Book of Mormon about what pedobaptism necessarily implies.
Rory
Hi Rory,
Thanks much for sharing your reflections.
Back on July 20, 2017 I published a post (link) that focused on a website—Lost Mormonism—wherein the use of a number of occultic items and practices utilized by Joseph Smith Jr. and some of his early followers are documented.
A bit later, I published a thread that identified three different explanations for the rise of Mormonism. The following is from the opening post:
>>Three primary explanations/interpretations of the historical period under investigation emerged shortly after the publication of the Book of Mormon, and have remained in place to this day (with a number of nuanced variations within each of the three). The first explanation I shall term 'Supernatural A', is the story advanced by Joseph Smith Jr.. The second, I shall term 'Supernatural B', promulgated by a good number of non-Mormon Christians who believe that a strictly 'naturalistic' explanation of the germane events fails to provide an adequate narrative of all that took place within the timeframe under discussion, maintaining that Satanic deception was involved. The third is the 'naturalistic' view, which excludes a priori any possibility of supernatural events.>> (LINK)
In the next month, I delved more deeply into the 'Supernatural B' explanation, which included a very interesting letter from Joseph’s uncle Jesse Smith, to his brother Hyrum. (LINK)
Now, as for your post, at the beginning, you wrote:
==Those of us who hold that Satan disguises himself as an angel of light (I Cor. 11:13, 14), should not necessarily be compelled to provide naturalistic explanations for religious phemenomena that has been interpreted by LDS, Muslims, or others as coming from God.==
I suspect that I go a bit further than you; concerning the ‘Supernatural A’, ‘Supernatural B’ and ‘naturalistic’ explanations, I limit the probability that the ‘naturalistic’ explanation is the true one to just 5%. As for ‘Supernatural A’, 40%; and ‘B’, 55%.
Interestingly enough, as my studies into Mormon origins have deepened and progressed, the probability of the ‘naturalistic’ explanation has consistently diminished.
Grace and peace,
David
Post a Comment