I think the question is, do you have any proof, other than faith, that it was a virgin birth?
To a non-believer, it would sound rediculous to say that your Savior was conceived by a virgin, because it is not a natural possibility.
The same with a snake convincing someone to eat an apple. Unless you are a Hoodoo practioner, you probably dont believe in anthropomorphism. You have to have faith that this account is true, because so far, we have never recorded another animal talking to a person in a human language.
It is the same with Mormons. They have faith that their documentation is correct. They cant find the gold plates, we couldnt find Jesus’ body.
If you denegrate someone’s faith because you think it is silly, you have to be welcome to them doing the same to you.
Sam:
Why do you think that “faith” has only a vertical dimension? Isn’t “trust” a component of “faith?” If you worship at a local church, don’t you “trust” (to various degrees) what the pastor is saying? Isn’t that what one might call “horizontal” trust?
In the same way, when we are reading any writer of antiquity – and they are NOT writing in the language of myth – but conveying accounts as if they were eyewitnesses, do we not have the opportunities to extend trust (or distrust) in these accounts?
If you’re a juror in a case, and you are presented with written evidence by an eyewitness who is now deceased, are you thereby not weighing the “eyewitness testimony” of this person?
Are you telling us that all of this involves only a “me and God faith” thing – but that eyewitnesses bear no role in this process? If so, were you to serve as a juror in a trial case, would you only “pray” and exercise “faith” in God to determine the guilt or innocence of the person on trial?
Why would you exercise distinct standards in a trial by jury than scrutinizing the eyewitnesses who are recorded in the books of the Bible – including the very authors who wrote them? (You know the Bible is not simply one book; it’s 40 or so authors who wrote them).
It’s on this basis I claim: Ask any prosecuting attorney if eyewitnesses have been enough to convict somebody…even with lack of direct evidence. If you have such testimony, usually coupled with circumstantial evidence, and character witnesses attesting to the eyewitnesses, ‘tis enough to convict. And jurors don't convict people based upon "faith" or burning bosoms.
Sam, too often people neglect to treat the books of the Bible as written by eyewitnesses who are offering their testimony – and they are also reporting additional eyewitnesses. As such, people tend to treat eyewitnesses in courtroom trials – and hold them to distinct standards than they would eyewitness writers of history.
It is the same with Mormons. They have faith that their documentation is correct.
Well, now apply the above comments to Mormons. It’s not simply a “me and God ‘faith’” on this…
...just like the Bible and the eyewitnesses who recorded the historicity of it, we need to also review the eyewitnesses & secondary witnesses who recorded these events – like what is in the Mormon document, History of the Church.
We need to ask both is this a trustworthy (secondary) source?
And does the account stand up to its own consistency, etc.?
They cant find the gold plates, we couldnt find Jesus’ body.
Sorry, but Jesus’ “body” appeared to up to 500 witnesses before heading back to heaven. Most of the so-called “eyewitnesses” of these plates (like 2 of the top 3 witnesses) said they only “saw” the plates with “eyes of FAITH” – distinct than “eyewitness” testimony). Other “witnesses” mentioned in the article of this thread – like brother William Smith – also never actually “saw” the plates but supposedly picked them up covered by a pillowcase. (Who knows what may have been inside) Bottom line – unlike Jesus’ resurrection which was openly paraded by hundreds of people – these gold plates were sequestered away from just about all people.
Once again, you want to jump from Point A (grave to the sky in Jesus’ case; hiding place to the sky in Smith’s “gold plate” case) minus carefully weighing the horizontal dimension that occurred in the interim time between the two destinations. It just doesn’t work the way you've described. Yes, faith trumps reason; but God gave us reason. He is not expecting us to deny reason or be unreasonable. We know Pentecost (Acts 2) occurred 50 days after the resurrection. And we know the Ascension is recorded prior to that (Acts 1). It appears Jesus hung around for weeks before ascending; and it would have been necessary for these gold plates to have been around for years and years per Smith's tale. If Jesus' bodily resurrection could drum up enough eyewitnesses where the apostle Paul could later claim that none of what happened was done "in a corner," then it's not merely based upon a contemporary supernatural faith; there's a dimension that also includes historical events.
If you denegrate someone’s faith because you think it is silly, you have to be welcome to them doing the same to you.
I am saying examine this the same way a jury would examine a case.
Good point. Some of these posts are purely for the non-mormon. There are so many other doctrinal problems with the LDS faith to argue about but these stories of Joseph Smith are fantasy at best. Joseph Smith had enough different versions of his first vision that anyone could pick and choose which one they liked best.