|
[MORMONISM. The Faith of the Twenty-first Century. Volume 1. Edward K. Watson. (Liahona Publications. Copyright © 1998 Edward K. Watson.) pp. lxxxiii-lxxxiv. MORMONISM: Series Introduction. All rights reserved.]
Historical refutation vs Scriptural refutation
I am not concerned at the sophisticated historical arguments our opponents use because the LDS church is true biblically. Non-scriptural historical writings which cast doubt upon the validity of the accounts found in the Latter-day Scriptures and concerning the legitimacy of Joseph Smith are in reality, unable to disprove the LDS faith. How can the church's history invalidate its validity when it is reflected accurately in the Bible as being the true church? Historical arguments can't disprove the church since any insistence that they can will also invalidate Jesus and Traditional Christianity. How would Christianity fare if all that were utilized were historical writings of the early centuries “by non-Christian contemporaries” (the opponents of Christianity who were referenced by Porphyry, Celsus and in the Rabbinical Literature)? Jesus wouldn't be viewed as the Savior/God & man/Son of God but would be known as Yeshua-ben-Pantera, the son of the Roman soldier Pantera whom Mary allegedly had an adulterous affair with.1 Jesus learned magic tricks in Egypt that he used to dupe the people,2 and was excommunicated and condemned for worshiping an idol.3 He was the leader of a band of hooligans who stirred up trouble in Palestine and was executed by the Romans for being a terrorist and sorcerer.4
These descriptions of Jesus are so foreign to what society thinks about him, since our society's image of Jesus is colored by the writings of those who believed in him and by the records about him that are considered “Scripture” by Christians.
Baptists don't care that Roger Williams, the founder of the first Baptist church in America, which all other Baptist churches came from, denounced the very church he created stating he didn't have any authority from God to organize such a church and consequently the church he made didn't possess any legitimacy either. They don't care that the original Baptists, the Anabaptists practiced polygamy at Münster. Lutherans don't care that Martin Luther had extreme anti-Semitic views and was responsible for the deaths of many thousands of “non-believers.” Catholics don't care about the millions of people both Christians and non-Christians who died because of the actions and permissions of the popes and Ecumenical Councils, especially during the Crusades and under the Inquisition. Neither do they care about the Papal Declarations that various native Indian tribes were nonhuman (as a result weren't descendants of Adam and Eve) which enabled them to be enslaved by the Europeans. Anglicans don't care about the existence of their church was due to King Henry VIII's “itch.” Presbyterians don't care about John Knox's abuses. Reformed Christians don't care about John Calvin's nasty temper and Huldrych Zwingli's willingness to use the sword to spread the Word. Why then do anti-Mormons think we care if Joseph Smith drank and smoked the day before his death, or if he had a temper, or that he booted an abusive and hostile minister? At least he didn't chop anyone to pieces unlike the biblical prophet Samuel (1 Sam 15:33).
Frankly, historical arguments only furnish a supporting role for one's faith and are only secondary to scriptural accuracy. They are irrelevant to the legitimacy of one's faith.5 It is enlightening any sole adherence to historical arguments which “disproves” Mormonism, disproves many of the prominent branches of Christianity, and even disproves Jesus Christ's authenticity.
[ENDNOTES]:
1.b. Sanh. 106a; b. Hag. 4b; b. `Abod. Zar. 16b-17a; t. Hul. 2.24; Qoh. Rab. 1:8. §3; Yal. Šimeoni on Mic 1 and Prov 5:8. Taken from NWNTI. pp. 143-145.
2.b. Sanh. 107b; b. Sota 47a; y. Hag. 2.2; b. Sanh. 43a; t. Šabb. 11.15; b. Šabb. 104b; Justin Martyr. Dialog. 69.7; Origen. C. Cel. 1:6,38,71; DJG. p. 842.
3.b. Sanh. 107b; b. Sota 47a; y. Hag. 2.2; y. Sanh. 6.6. Taken from NWNTI. p. 144.
4.b. Sanh. 43a; t. Sanh. 10.11; y. Sanh. 7:12; b. Sanh. 67a; y. Sanh. 7.16; t. Sanh. 9.7; Tg. Est. I. 7:9. Taken from NWNTI. p. 145.
5.Anti-Mormon works that focus on historical arguments such as those done by the Tanners can never disprove the church since the realm of history is outside the spiritual realm. Things of the Spirit can only be known by the spirit. No matter how hard they fight against this truism, it's still true.
|