The Apostle Paul and Joseph Smith's Vision

KEVIN HARRIS: Rob Bowman has written a paper^[1] comparing the Apostle Paul's encounter with Christ on the Damascus Road and Joseph Smith's encounter with two personages he claimed to be God, the Father, and Jesus. And that started Mormonism. It would take us hours to critique Joseph Smith's vision and defend Paul's, but let's look at some of the contrast that Bowman offers. This is often used by skeptics to try to show that the Christian is in the same boat as the Mormon despite the theological differences between the two. If one can dismiss Joseph Smith's alleged encounter then one can dismiss Paul's Damascus Road experience. What are some of the initial considerations for dealing with things like that?

DR. CRAIG: I think this is in principle a good objection, and it will depend upon a close examination of the evidence in each case. Historically, skepticism about biblical miracles was influenced much more by Conyers Middleton’s book on counterfeit Catholic miracles than by Hume's famous essay. Middleton argued that there are spurious miracles down through church history attributed to saints and statues and relics and things of that sort which nobody believes really happened, and yet the evidence for many of these would seem to be just as good as the evidence for the biblical miracles. The result of Middleton's book was to undermine the credibility of the biblical miracles. Dale Allison in his most recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, employs the same sort of objection to cast doubt on the testimony to Jesus’ empty tomb. He claims that there are reports of so-called rainbow bodies in Tibetan Buddhism where Buddhist monks disappear from their tombs. They evaporate leaving only their hair and fingernails in the coffin. He also gives a story from Pope Gregory the Great of someone whose tomb was found empty in a local church. And this was verified by witnesses. So Allison would say on what basis can you deny the historical facticity of these stories and yet affirm the historicity, for example, of Jesus’ empty tomb? Gary Habermas’ second volume of his multivolume work on the resurrection of Jesus deals with these sorts of purported explanations. That would be one place to go to look at these comparable cases. But it's interesting that some Christians at least (for example, Habermas and Michael Licona) respond to these sorts of reports by being very open to the reality of the paranormal. Allison is the same way. He is very open to the paranormal and to visions of the dead and demonic appearances and things of that sort. So one possible way to respond to these that some Christians take is to say, yes, these are historical as well, even though they don't accept the theology that goes along with them.

KEVIN HARRIS: By the way, what are we to make of Paul's calling his encounter a “vision”? Acts 26:19 reads, “So then, King Agrippa, I did not prove disobedient to the heavenly vision.” Yet the accounts also talk about the physical nature of the encounter – the bright light that knocked him off his horse, others heard the sound. It doesn't really fit what we typically think of as a vision.

DR. CRAIG: Yes. Acts itself relates the appearance of Jesus to Paul as having extra-mental accompaniments that were also experienced by his traveling companions. So this was not a purely visionary experience. Contrast in this regard Stephen's vision in chapter 7 of the book of Acts where Stephen looks into heaven and he says, “I see the Son of Man standing next to the throne of God in heaven.” And none of the standers-by saw any such thing. No one experienced that. It was purely intra-mental in Stephen's case and so was purely a subjective vision on his part even if caused by God.

KEVIN HARRIS: Joseph Smith himself compares his vision to Paul's account. Smith wrote,

However, it was nevertheless a fact that I had beheld a vision. I have thought since, that I felt much like Paul, when he made his defense before King Agrippa, and related the account of the vision he had when he saw a light, and heard a voice; . . . He had seen a vision, he knew he had, . . . So it was with me. I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true.

This has led Mormon apologists to positively compare Paul and Joseph Smith. Richard Lloyd Anderson wrote,

Both Paul and Joseph Smith had a “first vision.” ….Many Christians who comfortably accept Paul’s vision reject Joseph Smith’s. However, they aren’t consistent in their criticisms, for most arguments against Joseph Smith’s first vision would detract from Paul’s Damascus experience with equal force.

That sounds like it would be attacked specifically to convince Christians of the truth of Mormonism. Paul had a divine appearance. Joseph Smith had a divine appearance. How was the Christian to be prepared for something like this?

DR. CRAIG: I think what we would do is draw attention to those extra-mental accompaniments of Paul's experience on the Damascus Road. Joseph Smith's vision was not shared by anyone else. It was purely a private experience. Also, Paul and the entire rest of the New Testament make a clear conceptual distinction between a resurrection appearance of Christ and a vision of the exalted Christ. The resurrection appearances soon ceased never to be repeated. On the other hand, visions of the exalted Christ were ongoing in the early Christian Church. You have such a vision described, for example, in the book of Revelation, and you have examples in the book of Acts and in 1 Corinthians 12 where Paul speaks of having these visions of the exalted Christ that were not resurrection appearances. They were purely subjective intra-mental even if they were caused by God. What was characteristic of a resurrection appearance of Christ was these extra-mental accompaniments. It occurred in the external world and therefore was publicly available and experienceable. Therefore, the experience of Paul on the Damascus Road, though having semi-visionary properties, could be called by him an appearance of Jesus.

KEVIN HARRIS: Bowman records former president of the LDS church, Howard W. Hunter, who wrote,

I am grateful for my membership in the Church; and my testimony of its divinity hinges upon the simple story of the lad under the trees kneeling and receiving heavenly visitors—not one God, but two separate, individual personages, the Father and the Son, revealing again to the earth the personages of the Godhead. My faith and testimony hinge upon this simple story, for if it is not true, Mormonism falls. If it is true—and I bear witness that it is—it is one of the greatest single events in all history.

Two things I’d like to ask about that. First, what does the two separate individual personages (the Father and the Son) that Joseph Smith allegedly saw imply about the Godhead, the Trinity in particular? And, secondly, is there any value in his saying, “I bear witness that it is true” or can that be just written off as mere subjective opinion?

DR. CRAIG: It's astonishing that he refers to these personages as personages of the Godhead because this is consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity which Mormonism denies! He says, “revealing again to the earth the personages of the Godhead.” That is trinitarian theology, not Mormon theology. Mormon theology interprets the Son not to be equal with the Father and therefore there are not multiple personages in the Godhead. And yet that is what this president of the LDS church affirmed. Now, as for his testimony, it can't just be written off or dismissed as subjective because it may be veridical. People can have subjective experiences that are veridical; that is to say, authentic. So we shouldn't be a priori dismissive of someone who claims to have an experience like this.

KEVIN HARRIS: The proposition seems to be that if two arguments or events are comparable then if one is false, the other is false, or if one is true then the other is true. What's the problem with that, if any?

DR. CRAIG: I don't think there is a problem with that form of argument. If the evidence is exactly the same for each then they stand or fall together. Now, certainly it could be the case that one is true and the other false but we wouldn't be able to know that from the evidence. This is an argument about evidence, and the claim is that if you have equally good evidence supporting both claims then they stand or fall together. You won't be able to tell which one is true and which one is false.

KEVIN HARRIS: Continuing the article, Bowman says when it comes to dialoguing with Mormons,

Evangelicals can consistently and cogently argue that [Smith’s] First Vision should be rejected simply because of its theological opposition to biblical doctrine. That is, they might present an a priori objection to the First Vision . . .

Is that the best way to persuade a Mormon? That they should embrace historic orthodox Christianity rather than Mormonism? You're saying, “I'm going to reject it a priori because what you're teaching is in opposition to the scriptures.”

DR. CRAIG: Bowman didn't say that this is the best way to persuade a Mormon. I doubt that there is any one key that unlocks all the doors. Rather, what Bowman says is that the Christian can reject the Mormon claim on theological grounds, and I think that's correct. If you have good reasons to believe that your theology is true then you have good grounds for rejecting any claim that's inconsistent with that theology.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next Bowman says,

. . . evangelicals generally seek to persuade Mormons that the First Vision did not occur by using historical reasoning to call into question the credibility or reliability of the story. . . . What is meant here by historical criticism is not the so-called “historical-critical method” that assumes the Enlightenment philosophical baggage of naturalism or anti-supernaturalism. Rather, historical criticism refers to the use of historical methods for the purpose of investigating the historical facts that gave rise to the text one is studying. . . .  Historical criticism asks, “To what historical circumstances does this text refer, and out of what historical circumstances did it emerge?” Historical criticism, then, seeks to determine as far as possible what happened that gave rise to a particular text. . . .  it investigates whether those events occurred by seeking the best explanation for the available evidence, external and internal. By “best” is meant an explanation inferred from the available evidence that is the most plausible, has the greatest explanatory scope and power, is weakened by disconfirming evidence less than rival explanations, and requires the fewest or least obtrusive ad hoc hypotheses.

Sounds a lot like your work, Bill. Talk about his explanation of historical criticism.

DR. CRAIG: It seems to me that what Bowman is talking about here is just assessing the claim in question by using the objective standards of historical evidence that historians use to weigh historical hypotheses.

KEVIN HARRIS: Bowman does cite your work defending the historicity of the resurrection in this paper. He also outlines seven lines of evidence that converge that not only show the truth of Paul's encounter but that comparisons to Joseph Smith are unwarranted. I’m just going to invite everybody that this just kind of scratches the surface. You can dig deeper, but here's some outline he lists.

1. Paul’s encounter with the risen Jesus had precedent in the appearances of the crucified and risen Jesus to those who had become apostles before him.
2. Paul had aggressively persecuted Christians prior to his conversion.
3. Paul carried out his persecution of the church motivated by religious zeal and in the belief that he was upholding the Law of Moses.
4. Luke’s accounts of Paul’s vision are consistent with Paul’s own account in Galatians yet clearly independent of it.
5. Paul’s apostleship, though not deriving from the Jerusalem apostles, was later accepted by them.
6. Paul not only converted to faith in Christ but he championed the incorporating of Gentiles into the Christian faith without requiring them to convert to Judaism.
7. Paul’s teaching, life, and death demonstrate that he was sane and that his experience on the Damascus road was transformative in remarkably positive ways.

Any comments or additions to these seven?

DR. CRAIG: I would say that it's not clear that all of these seven differences are salient, but more importantly what Bowman leaves out are the differences about Joseph Smith; namely, that Smith was a liar and a charlatan whose testimony could not therefore be trusted.

KEVIN HARRIS: Bowman argues in this paper that, unlike the evidence for Paul, the evidence is fairly overwhelming that Smith's First Vision did not occur but was a later story developed by Joseph in the 1830s. Some of the problems he listed are,

1. There are too many changes and discrepancies in the account for it to be considered reliable.
2. The basic elements of Joseph Smith’s first vision story—the appearance of deity and the message that Christianity was apostate—were part and parcel of his religious upbringing. His parents were part of a movement of disaffected Protestants who regarded all denominations as having fallen away from original, true Christianity.
3. Most damning is the collection of statements in affidavits of nearly 100 of Joseph Smith's neighbors in 1833 which accused the Smith family members, especially Joseph Smith and his father, of laziness, excessive drinking, failure or neglect to pay their bills or debts, habitual lying, fighting, cheating, and similar failings. They criticized Joseph [Smith’s] claims to be able to see buried gold and silver with his seer stone. They claimed that Joseph purported to make contact with ghosts, spirits, and other preternatural or supernatural entities, and to be able to tell fortunes with the seer stone. They mentioned Joseph using magic circles to try to remove buried treasure guarded by evil spirits and criticized the family for wasting their time in frequent digging for treasure. They referred critically to Joseph’s claims concerning seeing an angel and finding gold plates. The group statement from 51 Palmyra residents mentions that the Smith family was “particularly famous for visionary projects,” referring to their treasure hunting, and comments on the fact that Martin Harris and other local converts to Mormonism were also “visionary.”

So there they are right there. Do you agree that the main reasons one should not embrace Mormonism are its conflict with biblical doctrine and the questionable character of Joseph Smith?

DR. CRAIG: Yes, I do agree, especially with the first – its conflict with biblical doctrine. Our listeners may not appreciate that Mormonism is a crude form of polytheism. It believes that God is a humanoid person with a body who lives somewhere on a planet in outer space and who begets children who will then each become the god of its universe as well. It is one of the strangest cults ever to arise on American soil. So I think its inconsistency with biblical theology is really the main reason to reject it.

KEVIN HARRIS: Bowman's conclusion is,

The apostle Paul’s vision of Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus enjoys rich evidential support and is critical as an explanation for his dramatic about-face from persecutor of the church to apostle to the Gentiles. By contrast, the prophet Joseph Smith’s vision of Jesus Christ and God the Father in the woods near his upstate New York home in 1820 is not only sorely lacking in evidence, but is utterly lacking in credibility on a wide array of fronts. Christians are more than consistent in accepting Paul’s story but not Joseph’s.

As we end today's podcast, I think we can encourage our Mormon friends to consider that the grounds for Jesus’ resurrection are intact even if Joseph Smith's claims are false. If Mormonism is shown to be false, the Mormon still has the resurrection and can be a follower of Jesus. It's not “Mormonism or nothing” as a Mormon missionary told me that in Arizona that I once talked to. I got him to agree with me. He thought about it. He liked the evidence for the resurrection and had begun reading your work. He agreed. He said, “Yeah, OK. If it's false, we still have the resurrection.”

DR. CRAIG: Yes. So, in other words, even if Mormonism is false, biblical Christianity might well be true, and there are good reasons to think it true. In fact, if I had to complain about Bowman's article, it is his target is way too easy. There's just no comparison in terms of the historical credibility of Joseph Smith's vision and Paul's experience on the Damascus Road. So this is really kind of like taking candy from a baby. I think Rob would be better served if he would take some of these cases mentioned, for example, by Dale Allison and compare them with the evidence of the New Testament for the empty tomb and resurrection appearances and show why these are not comparable and why it is more rational to believe in the biblical narratives.^[2]