Judging Miracles: Background

Over the Christmas holiday I picked up my Dad's copy of Believing History: Latter Day Saint Essays, a collection of essays by Richard Bushman. One of the essays, "Joseph Smith and Skepticism," discusses some of the context that led many to reject Joseph's miraculous claims. [Disclaimer: I don't own the book, so I welcome correction if my memory errs.]

Continue Reading

For many, the skepticism toward miracles was rooted in the Enlightenment resulting in rejection of biblical miracles. Protestant Christians responded with apologetic arguments in defense of miracles, but they had a problem--Catholicism had a substantial tradition of miracles. Protestants had to defend biblical miracles while discrediting Catholic miracles, so they came up with a number of criteria to separate the true from the false. One fierce defender of Christian miracles was Alexander Campbell--the same man who attacked Mormonism after the conversion of Sidney Rigdon and other of his [Campbell's] movement in Ohio.

Joseph's miracles stood between two opposing enemies--those who rejected miracles in general, and those who thought miraculous claims like Joseph's had to be debunked and rejected for the sake of defending those in the Bible.

I found this historical context quite interesting. It seems to me that the whole problem of judging miracles applies to us, but also in a slightly different way. Ours is a religious tradition that encourages seeking knowledge and understanding of this earth and how it works, yet demands belief in miracles. Skepticism and belief each have a claim in our theology.

In a forthcoming post I will discuss my half-baked approach to the issue of judging miracles.