FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Criticism of Mormonism/Books/An Insider's View of Mormon Origins/Conclusion
Response to claims made in "Conclusion"
| Claims made in "Chapter 8: The First Vision" | A FAIR Analysis of: An Insider's View of Mormon Origins A work by author: Grant Palmer
|
In many sacrament meetings, the tendency remains to simply mention Jesus' name and then talk about other matters rather than to discuss him and his ministry.
—An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, p. 263.
259
Claim
- The author claims that Joseph mistranslated many documents.
Author's source(s) - Author's opinion.
259
Claim
- The author claims that the gold plates cannot be accepted as the source of the Book of Mormon.
Author's source(s) - Author's opinion.
259-260
Claim
- The author claims that the Book of Mormon is a product of Joseph's "creative mind."
Author's source(s) - Author's opinion.
260 - The author claims that the witnesses did not literally view the gold plates
The author(s) of An Insider's View of Mormon Origins make(s) the following claim:
The author claims that the witnesses did not literally view the gold plates.
Author's sources: Author's opinion.
FAIR's Response
Question: Did the three witnesses's experience of seeing the plates and the angel take place only in their minds?
Book of Mormon Central, KnoWhy #267: Why Were Three Key Witnesses Chosen To Testify Of The Book Of Mormon? (Video)
The Three Witnesses were very explicit that they had actually seen the angel and the plates
Some critics suggest that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place solely in their minds. They claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two supposed quotes from Martin Harris. Supposedly Harris was once asked if he saw the plates with his “naked eyes” to which he responded, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.”[1] In another interview Harris allegedly claimed that he only saw the plates in a “visionary or entranced state.”[2]
Oliver Cowdery wrote explicitly for himself and Martin Harris when he replied, in a November 1829 letter, to questions about whether "juggling" (i.e., trickery or conjuring) could have explained what they saw:
"It was a clear, open beautiful day, far from any inhabitants, in a remote field, at the time we saw the record, of which it has been spoken, brought and laid before us, by an angel, arrayed in glorious light, [who] ascend [descended I suppose] out of the midst of heaven. Now if this is human juggling—judge ye."[3]
Critics impose their own interpretation on phrases that do not match what the witnesses reported in many separate interviews. When challenged on the very point which the critics wish to read into their statements—their literal reality—both Harris and the other witnesses were adamant that their experience was literal, real, and undeniable. As early convert William E. McLellin reported:
"D[avid] Whitmer then arose and bore testimony to having seen an Holy Angel who had made known the truth of this record to him. [A]ll these strange things I pondered in my heart."[4]
260 - The author claims that we have reinterpreted the witnesses' testimony to be "rational, impressive and unique"
The author(s) of An Insider's View of Mormon Origins make(s) the following claim:
The author claims that we have reinterpreted the witnesses' testimony to be "rational, impressive and unique."
Author's sources: Author's opinion.
FAIR's Response
Question: What is "empirical evidence"?
"Empirical evidence" is evidence based upon observation
Merriam-Webster defines empirical as: "originating in or based on observation or experience." The Book of Mormon witnesses testified that they saw the plates, and three of them testified that they saw an angel. This is the very definition of "empirical evidence." They reported what they saw with their own eyes. This is not faith, but knowledge.
Question: Is a man unreliable because he lived in the 19th-Century?
To imply that someone is unreliable simply because of the era they lived in is a ad hominem attack
Were the Book of Mormon witnesses not "empirical" or "rational" because they lived in the 19th-Century during a time when "folk magic" was practiced?
- One critic of Mormonism claims "The mistake that is made by 21st century Mormons is that they’re seeing the Book of Mormon Witnesses as empirical, rational, twenty-first century men" (The claim was modified to read "nineteenth-century men" in later revisions)[5]
To imply that nineteenth-century men are intrinsically unreliable is both an ad hominem (an attack against the character of person making the claim, rather than the claim itself) and sets an impossible standard of evidence for the gospel inasmuch as they were the only men available as witnesses at the time. Thus the author is using a screening argument (dates of life) that can be used to exclude whatever evidence he wishes to ignore.
Some have claimed that this rebuttal is a misapplication of the ad-hominem fallacy. It's easy to claim that an ad-hominem fallacy is misapplied by invoking the fallacy fallacy, which means that an argument can still be true even if it contains a logical fallacy. Thus, even if it's an ad hominem attack, it may still be true and necessary for evaluating someone! This is a common counterclaim to make when an interlocutor accuses you of ad hominem. But let's revert to the original argument being made here. The original argument states that the witnesses are unreliable because they lived in the 19th century, sought for treasure, and/or (may have) practiced folk magic. It is ad hominem to claim this and does not address the consistency of the witnesses, even when their feelings for Joseph turned sour at different points of their lives. It does not address the multiplicity of occasions when they went on record to testify, the occasions when they went our of their way to correct their testimony when misrepresented by the public press, the both tangible and revelatory nature of their experience, the witnesses other than the 11 that saw the plates and handled them, and so forth. The argument is bunk.
The following video introduces all witnesses, both formal and informal, to the Book of Mormon, examines several of the hardest-hitting claims against them, and demonstrates the emergent strength of their composite testimonials.
261
Claim
- The author claims that the Church's foundational stories are inaccurate.
Author's source(s) - Author's opinion.
263
Claim
- Author's quote: Recently the church has reemphasized the importance of centering our worship in Christ. This is apparent at the upper levels of the church, but little has yet changed at the local level. In many sacrament meetings, the tendency remains to simply mention Jesus' name and then talk about other matters rather than to discuss him and his ministry. In our Sunday classes, the Gospels are taught for several months once every four years; the lives and teachings of modern prophets are studied each year.
Author's source(s) - Author's opinion.
- This is an Absurd claim
- ↑ Wilford C. Wood, Joseph Smith Begins His Work, Vol. 1, 1958, intro.
- ↑ Anthony Metcalf, Ten Years Before the Mast (Malad, Idaho: Research Publications, 1888), 70-71. Quoted in Dale Morgan, Dale Morgan on Early Mormonism: Correspondence and a New History, ed. John Phillip Walker (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1986), xxx.
- ↑ Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, in letter dated 29 November 1829, quoted in Corenlius C. Blatchly, "THE NEW BIBLE, written on plates of Gold or Brass," Gospel Luminary 2/49 (10 Dec. 1829): 194.
- ↑ William E. McLellin, journal, 18 July 1831, reproduced in The Journals of William E. McLellin, 1831–1836, edited by Jan Shipps and John W. Welch (Urbana: Brigham Young University Studies and University of Illinois Press, 1994), 29. ISBN 0842523162..
- ↑ Jeremy Runnells, "Letter to a CES Director" (original version posted on the critical website "FutureMissionary.com") (2013)