# Book of Mormon described as "Another testament of Jesus Christ" in ads. Is this true? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 11, 2002, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-of-mormon-described-as-another-testament-of-jesus-christ-in-ads-is-this-true/131772 "2002-10-11T03:57:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2002, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-of-mormon-described-as-another-testament-of-jesus-christ-in-ads-is-this-true/131772/121 "2002-10-17T02:16:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > \*\* > Yes, and I take that to mean that, given 2 alleged events: (1) the resurrection of Jesus in the first century, and (2) the reappearance of Jesus in America much later, NEITHER of which has any corroborating evidence, that we can infer that (2) is less likely to have actually occurred, due to the “greater inference” that may be drawn from the lack of corroborating evidence. And so conversely, if (2) is LESS likely, (1) MUST be more likely to have actually occurred, and hence is more believable. > > If this is not your position, please tell me where I have gone astray. \*\* What you say is correct **relatively speaking**. That is to say, relative to an event that can be positively proven not to have occurred, an event that might have occurred and cannot be proven not to have occurred is more likely to have occurred. But the important point to note is that this logic says nothing at all in absolute terms about whether or not the latter event is at all likely to have occurred. Which is more likely, that there is a pink, fire breathing, pipe smoking 16 foot elephant with bad breath in my office right at this moment or that there is a pink, fire breathing, pipe smoking 16 foot elephant with bad breath in my bedroom at home at the moment? The answer, relatively speaking, has to be the latter, because I am absolutely certain that there is no such elephant in my office (which is where I am) right now, and I have no way of checking on my bedroom right at the moment. Does that mean that it is valid to suggest that the latter is at all believable or likely or proven? No of course not. > [@](#): > > So if we apply your reasoning to this situation, wouldn’t we come to the inescapable yet absurd conclusion that since we EXPECT less evidence for the Greek gods, that they are more plausible? Because we expect less evidence to be available, we are less easily able to disprove their existence from the lack of that evidence. This makes the Greek gods more plausible than something for which we reasonably expect certain evidence, but do not find it. That sounds absurd, until one realises that this logic does not mean that Greek gods are significantly plausible, at all. Refer to my elephant example. Since we EXPECT less evidence of the pink elephant in my bedroom (because I am not at home and can’t see any evidence at all) it is more plausible than the pink elephant in my office. > [@](#): > > Your thesis seems to be that the more time that has elapsed since a given event, the more believable said event is. No, you are generalising way beyond anything I have ever said. Believability is a function of the evidence available, not the lapse of time. However, the lapse of time may have an effect upon the inferences that can be made from evidence or lack thereof. This may lead to a situation in which a lack of evidence for a long ago event means little, while the lack of evidence for a recent event means much. That may mean that a long ago event is harder to disprove than a recent one. In turn, that may mean that the long ago event is more believable than the recent one. That is not to say that you able to generalise to say that the long ago event is always going to be more believable Nor are you able to infer that the more long ago event is significantly believable at all. > [@](#): > > By that reasoning, wouldn’t the exploits of the ancient Greek gods be more believable than the miracles of Jesus? You are not comparing like with like, so it is hard to say. It depends on all the available evidence. I suspect that there are aspects of Greek myth themselves (whch are pretty wild and vague tales) that make them less believable than the miracles of Jesus for other reasons, beyond the simple question of lack of historical corroboration, which is why what you say sounds absurd. > [@](#): > > The point was that, like all spiritual matters, the miracles of Jesus are a matter of faith, and for one sect to say to another sect “OUR miracles are valid because they happened a long time ago, but YOU guys are liars” is just plain silly. Agreed, but I’m not sure that anyone was ever saying that (I certainly wasn’t). The point is not that NT miracles are bunk (as I believe them to be). The point is that Smith’s miracles are **obvious** bunk. Finally, **emarkp** , my understanding is that the witnesses who became estranged from Smith subsequently revealed that all they witnessed was something under a cloth, and/or that they only “saw” the plates in faith, not physically. If you have a cite to the contrary, let me know. ---
**Author:** ![emarkp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3be4f8/32.png) [@emarkp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emarkp)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2002, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-of-mormon-described-as-another-testament-of-jesus-christ-in-ads-is-this-true/131772/122 "2002-10-17T06:06:48Z")
The most well-known stories of the witnesses are Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer. Oliver was excommunicated, but eventually rebaptized. David Whitmer never rejoined the LDS, but when he was nearing death, he heard a rumor that someone was spreading that he had denied his witness of the Book of Mormon (note that they plus Martin Harris comprised the [“Three Witnesses” who testified](http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/thrwtnss) to seeing an angel present them with the plates, and hearing the voice of God from heaven confirming it). He published a pamphlet called _An Address to All Believers in Christ_, which reaffirmed his testimony. You can find a copy online at [Mormons In Transition](http://www.irr.org/mit/address1.html) (not exactly an LDS-friendly site). A relevant quote (emphasis mine): > [@](#): > > "Unto all Nations, Kindred Tongues and People, unto whom these presents shall come: > > "It having been represented by one John Murphy, of Polo, Caldwell County, Mo., that I, in a conversation with him last summer, denied my testimony as one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon. > > "To the end, therefore, that he may understand me now, if he did not then; and that the world may know the truth, I wish now, standing as it were, in the very sunset of life, and in the fear of God, once for all to make this public statement: > > " **That I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof, which has so long since been published with that Book, as one of the three witnesses.** Those who know me best, well know that I have always adhered to that testimony. And that no man may be misled or doubt my present views in regard to the same, I do again affirm the truth of all of my statements, as then made and published. > > "‘He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear;’ it was no delusion! What was written is written, and he that readeth let him understand. ---
**Author:** ![emarkp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3be4f8/32.png) [@emarkp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emarkp)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2002, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-of-mormon-described-as-another-testament-of-jesus-christ-in-ads-is-this-true/131772/123 "2002-10-17T06:40:00Z")
The most well-known stories of the witnesses are Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer. Oliver was excommunicated, but eventually rebaptized. David Whitmer never rejoined the LDS, but when he was nearing death, he heard a rumor that someone was spreading that he had denied his witness of the Book of Mormon (note that they plus Martin Harris comprised the [“Three Witnesses” who testified](http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/thrwtnss) to seeing an angel present them with the plates, and hearing the voice of God from heaven confirming it). He published a pamphlet called _An Address to All Believers in Christ_, which reaffirmed his testimony. You can find a copy online at [Mormons In Transition](http://www.irr.org/mit/address1.html) (not exactly an LDS-friendly site). A relevant quote (emphasis mine): > [@](#): > > "Unto all Nations, Kindred Tongues and People, unto whom these presents shall come: > > "It having been represented by one John Murphy, of Polo, Caldwell County, Mo., that I, in a conversation with him last summer, denied my testimony as one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon. > > "To the end, therefore, that he may understand me now, if he did not then; and that the world may know the truth, I wish now, standing as it were, in the very sunset of life, and in the fear of God, once for all to make this public statement: > > " **That I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof, which has so long since been published with that Book, as one of the three witnesses.** Those who know me best, well know that I have always adhered to that testimony. And that no man may be misled or doubt my present views in regard to the same, I do again affirm the truth of all of my statements, as then made and published. > > "‘He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear;’ it was no delusion! What was written is written, and he that readeth let him understand. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2002, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-of-mormon-described-as-another-testament-of-jesus-christ-in-ads-is-this-true/131772/124 "2002-10-17T07:58:47Z")
**emarkp** your idea of an independent sceptical witness and mine are very different things. If Smith showed the plates to a few atheists, a journalist or two, some archeologists, perhaps a couple of scholars in ancient languages, that is what I would call independent and sceptical. In any event having read a few points and counterpoints on the subject, I don’ t think that what you say is necessarily correct anyway. Firstly, some say Harris was baptised back into the church before he died, and if that is correct he is much less independent than you believe. Secondly, he was one of the “witnesses” who is reported as admitting that he only “saw” the plates “in faith” (whatever that means) and that they were covered with a cloth! ---
**Author:** ![emarkp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3be4f8/32.png) [@emarkp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emarkp)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2002, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-of-mormon-described-as-another-testament-of-jesus-christ-in-ads-is-this-true/131772/125 "2002-10-17T18:33:27Z")
What? I only mentioned Martin Harris in passing. The big quote is from David Whitmer (sorry for the double-post BTW). The point is that Whitmer disagreed vehemently with Joseph Smith about polygamy. Now, if Whitmer was in collusion with Smith, and didn’t see an angel and the plates–why did he reaffirm his testimony even after he was hostile to Smith? Why did **none** of the witnesses come out and call Smith a fraud? Note that Harris did claim to take handwritten copies of some of the plates to a scholar named Howard Anthon. [He claimed](http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1/63-65#62) that Anthon said that the characters were real and the translation correct. When Harris refused to bring the plates to him, Anthon refused to certify his statement. Anthon later denied this exchange, so it’s one person’s word against another–note that Harris did mortgage his farm to pay for the publication of the Book of Mormon. You may not see the testimony of the witnesses as conclusive proof (in fact, I’m not claiming that you should). However, they cannot be dismissed, as many an anti-Mormon publication has tried to do for 150+ years. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2002, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-of-mormon-described-as-another-testament-of-jesus-christ-in-ads-is-this-true/131772/126 "2002-10-17T18:46:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by g8rguy \* > I haven’t ignored the effect of the effects of the passage of time at all, because the passage of time isn’t really the issue (or, if it is really the issue, then yes, I agree, it would be absurd to suggest that all other things being equal, the older unsupported claim is de facto more plausible). Well then we are in agreement. I think the problem is that **Princhester** would like us to apply a higher standard of evidence to Smith’s claims, simply because they occurred at a later period in history: > [@](#): > > (Princhester): > So when, in all of that information, we do not have a single piece of corroborating evidence from outside of Smith’s own followers that his revelations were other than the purest moonshine, then that suggests very strongly that that is what they are. But would we EVER expect skeptics to corroborate religious miracles? Of course not. It wouldn’t have happened in Jesus’ time, and it wouldn’t have happened in Smith’s time. If a person believes a miracle, then they are by definition NOT a skeptic. > [@](#): > > I do see what you’re saying, but I would think that the chances that, for example, there happened to be Roman record keepers standing around at a Jewish wedding party who saw water get turned into wine, that thought this was worth recording, that said records have survived for 2000 years, and that we’ve found them, are so remote as to be negligible. But you are sort of sneaking in a little side argument here - that the Romans wouldn’t have thought the events worthy of writing down. These supposedly weren’t just parlor tricks. As depicted in the Bible, the Romans certainly took notice of Jesus. Your argument betrays a healthy skepticism as to whether Jesus was really an important figure to the Romans. But remember that we are evaluating not whether Jesus was a minor historical figure, but the claim that he was the son of God. I wouldn’t expect the Romans to crash a Jewish wedding, but then I wouldn’t expect a slew of atheists and newspaper reporters to show up when Smith looked at the Golden Plates, either. I find it interesting that opposite arguments are used to support the claims of the New Testament. On the one hand, the argument is often made that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, i.e. “If it weren’t true, why didn’t anyone question it at the time?” But then, if the lack of any confirmation of the events is pointed out, many will just as gleefully argue: “Well, it happened a long time ago, so you can’t expect much evidence.” > [@](#): > > Plainly, the absence of expected evidence is not the only consideration and it ought to be, more or less, the very last consideration. But I don’t think it can be ignored entirely. Perhaps not. But in THIS case, I do not see any compelling reason to put more stock in the New Testament claims than in Smith’s claims, and I say that with all due consideration of historical perspective. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2002, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-of-mormon-described-as-another-testament-of-jesus-christ-in-ads-is-this-true/131772/127 "2002-10-17T19:12:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Princhester \* > You are not comparing like with like, so it is hard to say. What, specifically, is it that would prevent us from comparing Greek stories to Jewish stories? > [@](#): > > It depends on all the available evidence. I suspect that there are aspects of Greek myth themselves (whch are pretty wild and vague tales) that make them less believable than the miracles of Jesus for other reasons, beyond the simple question of lack of historical corroboration, which is why what you say sounds absurd. What are the aspects of the Greek myths that make them less believable? How is doing one impossible thing any more or less believable than doing another impossible thing? Did the Greek gods really do anything more “wild” than coming back to life after being crucified? Why should the New Testament get a break from scrutiny just because there are more people currently using it as their religious text? > [@](#): > > Agreed, but I’m not sure that anyone was ever saying that (I certainly wasn’t). The point is not that NT miracles are bunk (as I believe them to be). The point is that Smith’s miracles are **obvious** bunk. I think they’re BOTH obvious bunk, but I don’t think you’ve made a convincing case for one being _more_ bunk than the other. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2002, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-of-mormon-described-as-another-testament-of-jesus-christ-in-ads-is-this-true/131772/128 "2002-10-17T19:20:52Z")
Yet again, I feel the need to point out that Princhester’s comments belie his obvious prejudice against LDS. Go on, Princhester: admit it. You’re not arguing; you’re bashing. ---
**Author:** ![g8rguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7cd45c/32.png) [@g8rguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/g8rguy)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2002, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-of-mormon-described-as-another-testament-of-jesus-christ-in-ads-is-this-true/131772/129 "2002-10-17T23:55:02Z")
> [@](#): > > But you are sort of sneaking in a little side argument here - that the Romans wouldn’t have thought the events worthy of writing down. These supposedly weren’t just parlor tricks. As depicted in the Bible, the Romans certainly took notice of Jesus. Your argument betrays a healthy skepticism as to whether Jesus was really an important figure to the Romans. But remember that we are evaluating not whether Jesus was a minor historical figure, but the claim that he was the son of God. I wouldn’t expect the Romans to crash a Jewish wedding, but then I wouldn’t expect a slew of atheists and newspaper reporters to show up when Smith looked at the Golden Plates, either. I am indeed inserting a side argument, and I didn’t mean to try to sneak it in, actually. I’m suggesting that a reason that I don’t find the Greek myths more plausible on these grounds is because I wouldn’t expect much historical record of Christ’s miracles. If the Gospels are accurate, Jesus was sufficiently important to the Romans that they took notice of him, but then there’s not much Roman documentary evidence that he existed in the first place (as I recall), so why should we expect there to be documentary evidence about any particular action of his? (NB: of course, if the Gospels are accurate about this, it seems a little odd to suggest that in other aspects they’re pure fairy tale, at least to me.) While some of the purported miracles were quite impressive, others were much less so. I mean, really, if you were a newspaper writer or something and you heard through the grapevine that there’s this rumor going around that some guy in the next town over turned a bottle of war into a bottle of Heineken, would you bother putting it in the newspaper? I assume that we are substantially less superstitious than were the Romans, but that’s just not the kind of thing I would expect to see recorded. That said, I, like you, wouldn’t expect there to be much in the way of atheists or reporters showing up to look at the Golden Plates. > [@](#): > > Perhaps not. But in THIS case, I do not see any compelling reason to put more stock in the New Testament claims than in Smith’s claims, and I say that with all due consideration of historical perspective. Yes, quite right. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2002, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-of-mormon-described-as-another-testament-of-jesus-christ-in-ads-is-this-true/131772/130 "2002-10-18T01:07:46Z")
I’m not particularly interested in the Greek god/NT argument. You are talking about shades of black here. It’s just not worth arguing about. None of it is significantly believable, but it is all hard to disprove, because of the lack of any evidence at all > [@](#): > > I think the problem is that Princhester would like us to apply a higher standard of evidence to Smith’s claims, simply because they occurred at a later period in history Nope. Same standard of evidence. It’s just that there is evidence that Smith’s claims are bunk. There is no evidence at all regarding the NT or Greek gods. If you don’t understand my point in that respect, I can’t explain it any better. > [@](#): > > But would we EVER expect skeptics to corroborate religious miracles? Of course not. It wouldn’t have happened in Jesus’ time, and it wouldn’t have happened in Smith’s time. If a person believes a miracle, then they are by definition NOT a skeptic. Nope. Never said they would. But they would have corroborated the existence of golden plates > [@](#): > > I wouldn’t expect the Romans to crash a Jewish wedding, but then I wouldn’t expect a slew of atheists and newspaper reporters to show up when Smith looked at the Golden Plates, either. Of course, this comment is a complete non-sequitur because you are not comparing like with like. Romans wouldn’t crash a Jewish wedding because they wouldn’t know that a miracle was to be performed, and the nature of the miracle was such that after it had been performed, there would be no evidence of it, just some wine. By way of contrast, (and let’s not let his followers escape from the verifiability of these assertions) Smith claimed to have actual, physical golden plates with writing in an ancient language on them for an extended period of time (years). And you honestly think that sceptics and historians and members of other religions and archeologists, in 1830, would not have been interested enough to even have a look? Pffh. ---
**Author:** ![TheSlammer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e79b87/32.png) [@TheSlammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheSlammer)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2002, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-of-mormon-described-as-another-testament-of-jesus-christ-in-ads-is-this-true/131772/131 "2002-10-18T15:47:11Z")
Is that what I said about discussion about religion? "And since when did open honest discussion about religion become “disgusting,” as TheSlammer said? " No, I said “some of the threads” disgusted me. And I really enjoyed many of those that are not even religious at all. Even some of the arguements not in favor of the Book of Mormon. But not praying is ludicrous! Orson Pratt never said to NOT pray. Praying is ESSENTIAL in all forms of religion. But anyways… Why wouldn’t you want to ask God. He says that he will tell you the truth of ALL things. And thank you for reitterating my point of testing to see if things are true by the Holy Spirit. I would ask all to read the Book of Mormon and take a test. And please use this as a guideline… Galatians 5: 22-23 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And If you do not feel these things while reading the Book of Mormon, please, put it away forever, but if you do, know that God speaks to us through the Holy Ghost, and that they are true and it will enlarge your soul to a greater understanding and enlightenment and love of ALL men. But I say once again, if you do not feel the fruits of the Spirit, Toss the book away for nought and go about your lives as you please. For me, I have had the answer to my prayers, and it has been confirmed again and again that the Book of Mormon is Another Testament of Christ. I also know that Jesus is the Christ and he atoned for the sins of the world, and is the Savior of the world. How do I know, because of the fruits of the Spirit. I don’t take other’s words for it, I trust God’s. And all I can do is live my life the best I can according to the feelings in my heart. But hey, thats just me, please do not take my word for it it’s all about what you feel inside. ---
**Author:** ![ouisey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/9fc29f/32.png) [@ouisey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouisey)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2002, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-of-mormon-described-as-another-testament-of-jesus-christ-in-ads-is-this-true/131772/132 "2002-10-18T16:04:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gobear \* > \*\* > Well, now that is just the liimit! What kind of cockamamie religion doesn’t have secret camps where you discuss secret doctrine? LDS folks, you need to get more evil! > > 1. Change the title of the President to the Great and Terrible Dark Overlord, and make him cackle evilly. Oh, and give him a white Persian cat to stroke. > > 2)Institute human sacrifices ASAP > > 3)Get some sacred monkeys. Every dark religion needs sacred animals: Thulsa Doom had his snake, the Kali cultists in **Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom** had cobras, and monkeys are cute. Plus they make adorable little spies who will eavesdrop on your enemies’ plans. > > 1. Get the membership to wear dark robes and teach 'em to chant in minor keys. > > 2. Learn the following phrases: > “Smite the unbelievers!” > “Guards, guards, after them!” > “You cannot resist the awesome power of our god!” \*\* Sign me up for THAT religion! ---
**Author:** ![ouisey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/9fc29f/32.png) [@ouisey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouisey)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2002, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-of-mormon-described-as-another-testament-of-jesus-christ-in-ads-is-this-true/131772/133 "2002-10-18T16:37:06Z")
BTW, even if it turns out in the end that Mormonism is the true religion, and I have to go to hell cuz I never believed in it…isn’t it true that someone here on earth can get baptised for me, and I’ll earn my wings and make it to heaven? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2002, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-of-mormon-described-as-another-testament-of-jesus-christ-in-ads-is-this-true/131772/134 "2002-10-18T18:31:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Princhester \* > I’m not particularly interested in the Greek god/NT argument. You are talking about shades of black here. It’s just not worth arguing about. None of it is significantly believable, but it is all hard to disprove, because of the lack of any evidence at all I would say the same of your attempt to compare the BofM unfavorably with the N.T. - but you certainly seem to want to argue about THAT. > [@](#): > > Nope. Same standard of evidence. It’s just that there is evidence that Smith’s claims are bunk. There is no evidence at all regarding the NT or Greek gods. If you don’t understand my point in that respect, I can’t explain it any better. Your point is abundantly clear; I just disagree with it. You have not demostrated your point in any way, shape, or form. All you have done is advance the specious argument that you _suppose_ that there ought to be more evidence for Smith’s claims, and that this alleged evidence is somehow lacking, based only on the fact that it “wasn’t that long ago”. But in fact, the evidence is pretty much equal for both - we have some written documents of dubious origin claiming that some people witnessed certain miracles, and in both cases, an utter lack of any objective verification of the events. If anything, Smith’s claims would have a slight advantage in that the eyewitness accounts are contemporaneous with the events, and are signed by actual people, as opposed to the gospels, which were written anonymously, decades after the fact. In addition, even a cursory reading of the gospels makes it obvious to any but the most stubborn fundamentalist that much of the written material was plagiarized; the similarities in not just the events described, but in the wording itself, go beyond what we would expect simply from eyewitnesses reporting what they saw. (I say this not to denigrate Christians, but to demonstrate my belief that these were writings of religious faith, never intended to be taken as legal declarations of fact. > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > ## But would we EVER expect skeptics to corroborate religious miracles? Of course not. It wouldn’t have happened in Jesus’ time, and it wouldn’t have happened in Smith’s time. If a person believes a miracle, then they are by definition NOT a skeptic. > > Nope. Never said they would. But they would have corroborated the existence of golden plates So what you are saying is that Smith had these Golden Plates, and you would have expected him to go around to the media and others showing them off, and since there were no newspaper articles about it, then that proves it was bunk? But in the case of Jesus, when he was supposedly tried by the Romans, challenged to perform a miracle, and refused to do so - this is not equally damning for the N.T.? If we are allowed to make the argument, “why didn’t he prove himself to the skeptics?”, why should we apply this argument ONLY to Smith? > [@](#): > > Of course, this comment is a complete non-sequitur because you are not comparing like with like. Romans wouldn’t crash a Jewish wedding because they wouldn’t know that a miracle was to be performed, and the nature of the miracle was such that after it had been performed, there would be no evidence of it, just some wine. By way of contrast, (and let’s not let his followers escape from the verifiability of these assertions) Smith claimed to have actual, physical golden plates with writing in an ancient language on them for an extended period of time (years). Actually, that was **g8rguy** ’s scenario, not mine; I was simply responding to him. But it’s interesting that you should mention non-sequiturs, considering your earlier analogy: > [@](#): > > Which is more likely, that there is a pink, fire breathing, pipe smoking 16 foot elephant with bad breath in my office right at this moment or that there is a pink, fire breathing, pipe smoking 16 foot elephant with bad breath in my bedroom at home at the moment? The answer, relatively speaking, has to be the latter, because I am absolutely certain that there is no such elephant in my office (which is where I am) right now, and I have no way of checking on my bedroom right at the moment. Does that mean that it is valid to suggest that the latter is at all believable or likely or proven? No of course not. To use a phrase that you seem to be fond of: You are not comparing like with like. Smith’s claims were not a pink elephant. > [@](#): > > And you honestly think that sceptics and historians and members of other religions and archeologists, in 1830, would not have been interested enough to even have a look? Pffh. Do YOU honestly think that the son of God walked the Earth 2000 years ago, and the only evidence we have left is a handful of biased, conflicting, anonymous writings from decades after the fact, many of which were even scrapped from the Bible by Christians themselves? Double Pffh. Again, I am not defending Mormon beliefs; I am merely saying this: Your position that Mormon beliefs should be singled out as being MORE dubious than other sects of Christianity is arbitrary. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2002, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-of-mormon-described-as-another-testament-of-jesus-christ-in-ads-is-this-true/131772/135 "2002-10-19T01:01:52Z")
Um, TheSlammer; you’re not helping folks understand. Please take a gander at the forum title and description. You might notice it says Great Debate; and, of course, the comment about “if you feel you must witness.” Scope out some of the threads here and you might notice that Book of Mormon Thumping is no different than Bible Thumping. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2002, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-of-mormon-described-as-another-testament-of-jesus-christ-in-ads-is-this-true/131772/136 "2002-10-19T01:45:49Z")
Blowero, I think we understand each other. You just evaluate the evidence and come to a different conclusion to me. I place a lot of value in the fact that Smith’s allegations were made in modern times. I’m a lawyer. I see in my work every day the extremely debilitating effect that the passage of time has on evidence. To me, the fact that Smith’s claims are more than 10 times more recent (and were made after record keeping became reliable and commonplace) means a lot. If it doesn’t to you, that’s your judgment, and we’ll just agree to disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2002, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-of-mormon-described-as-another-testament-of-jesus-christ-in-ads-is-this-true/131772/137 "2002-10-19T05:46:44Z")
And exactly how reliable is false testimony? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2002, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-of-mormon-described-as-another-testament-of-jesus-christ-in-ads-is-this-true/131772/138 "2002-10-19T07:52:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Princhester \* > \*\*Blowero, I think we understand each other. You just evaluate the evidence and come to a different conclusion to me. I place a lot of value in the fact that Smith’s allegations were made in modern times. I’m a lawyer. I see in my work every day the extremely debilitating effect that the passage of time has on evidence. To me, the fact that Smith’s claims are more than 10 times more recent (and were made after record keeping became reliable and commonplace) means a lot. If it doesn’t to you, that’s your judgment, and we’ll just agree to disagree. \*\* I should have guessed you were a lawyer.😃 (I’ll bet you’re a trial lawyer, at that). Anyway, I’ve enjoyed debating with you; you certainly make some very persuasive arguments. ---
**Author:** ![MrMcPlad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e19b73/32.png) [@MrMcPlad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrMcPlad)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2002, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-of-mormon-described-as-another-testament-of-jesus-christ-in-ads-is-this-true/131772/139 "2002-10-19T19:48:26Z")
So, basically we’ve figured out that there is not enough evidence on either side (to prove or to disprove) Joseph Smith’s story. However, some might believe that lack of evidence is indirect proof that the whole thing was made up. Essentially, it is a matter of faith. In response to TheSlammer’s proposal, I’d say we ought to take it seriously. I would be very surprised to find out that more than a handful of the Church’s antagonists have taken Moroni’s challenge: \*Read the Book of Mormon. Plenty of people have done that, but how many have done it with a cynical or skeptical attitude vs. an open mind? \*Consider the possibility that it could be true. Keep this pathway open. \*Compare the teachings in the Book to your own code of moral values and/or to the teachings of Christ. \*Pray. Ask God if he’s there and if the Book of Mormon is true. I doubt that too many antagonists have done this part, or if they did, it was only to go through the motions. \*Wait for an answer. Don’t just kneel down, pray, and then hurry to your other tasks. If you get a dark feeling, the book must be of the devil. If you get a good feeling it’s from God. If no feeling comes, well…you might want to try again, or just leave it. It’s up to you. I realize that this is a debate forum, but on matters of faith I think the only way to know the truth is to ask God. Not to study out all the historical proof and inconsistencies. We’ve already shown that that leads no where. ---
**Author:** ![MrMcPlad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e19b73/32.png) [@MrMcPlad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrMcPlad)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2002, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-of-mormon-described-as-another-testament-of-jesus-christ-in-ads-is-this-true/131772/140 "2002-10-19T19:54:11Z")
So, basically we’ve figured out that there is not enough evidence on either side (to prove or to disprove) Joseph Smith’s story. However, some might believe that lack of evidence is indirect proof that the whole thing was made up. Essentially, it is a matter of faith. In response to TheSlammer’s proposal, I’d say we ought to take it seriously. I would be very surprised to find out that more than a handful of the Church’s antagonists have taken Moroni’s challenge: \*Read the Book of Mormon. Plenty of people have done that, but how many have done it with a cynical or skeptical attitude vs. an open mind? \*Consider the possibility that it could be true. Keep this pathway open. \*Compare the teachings in the Book to your own code of moral values and/or to the teachings of Christ. \*Pray. Ask God if he’s there and if the Book of Mormon is true. I doubt that too many antagonists have done this part, or if they did, it was only to go through the motions. \*Wait for an answer. Don’t just kneel down, pray, and then hurry to your other tasks. If you get a dark feeling, the book must be of the devil. If you get a good feeling it’s from God. If no feeling comes, well…you might want to try again, or just leave it. It’s up to you. I realize that this is a debate forum, but on matters of faith I think the only way to know the truth is to ask God. Not to study out all the historical proof and inconsistencies. We’ve already shown that that leads no where. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-of-mormon-described-as-another-testament-of-jesus-christ-in-ads-is-this-true/131772.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/book-of-mormon-described-as-another-testament-of-jesus-christ-in-ads-is-this-true/131772.md?page=8)