Occupy Occupy?

I don't understand why I haven't seen this suggested as a political movement yet:  why don't the people who dislike Occupy D.C. simply occupy the “occupation”?  That is, just go down to the protest, and occupy tents while their owners are out.  When they come back and demand their tent back, declare that property is theft! 

I'm not seriously advocating it, of course, I just think it'd be funny as something akin to performance art.  And I'm also genuinely curious about how the average Occupier would respond to their tent being infringed upon in this way.  Complain that you've illegally infringed upon their rights to private possession of property?  Notify the police that you're sleeping where you're not supposed to?  I can only imagine that the police would enjoy the irony of someone trying to evict a trespasser from their illegal encampment.

Then again, this is only funny if you expect the Occupiers to be consistent in any shape or form.  While I appreciate the economic grievances that the Occupiers are venting, one thing I've learned from walking past (or through) McPherson Square every weekday for the last few months, it's that there are a lot of views being represented there, many of which seem wildly inconsistent with one another.  For example, here's the anarchist flag they have flying over the camp:

And here's the sign proclaiming that “Islam is the Way” sign that was, for a long time, the only sign visible from the western edge of the encampment:

If you don't get why that's funny, there's an old Islamic proverb, “Better sixty years of tyranny than a single night of anarchy.”   So maybe intellectual consistency isn't the strong-suit of the Occupiers.

Revisiting the Reformation Pope: A Defense of Pope Leo X

Pope Leo X, the pope at the time of the Reformation, came in for a lot of abuse at the hands of the early Reformers.  For myself, I think we should be careful about judging Leo X based solely on what his enemies said of him.  After all, if one were to judge Obama solely on how World Net Daily says of him, or judge Bush solely on what CounterPunch said of him, you'd get a wildly skewed image of the president.  So I want to offer something of the other side: to show that while he certainly had his faults (and well-known ones), he wasn't a particularly terrible pope.

I. Pope Leo, Sultan Suleiman, and Brother Luther

Sultan Suleiman

Leo's writings show a true concern for the spiritual well-being and unity of European Catholics, he was deeply concerned with the oft-overlooked Eastern Catholics, and he was an advocate for those Christians living under the shadow of advancing Muslim troops.

This last point shouldn't be forgotten: Suleiman’s Ottoman army was intent on conquering all Europe (and Asia and North Africa) and placing it under Sharia law, and he’d been incredibly successful. Suleiman broke the peace treaty he'd signed with Hungary, and quickly devoured the entire country. By 1529, the Turks were to the gates of Vienna.  The Siege of Vienna occurred in 1529, and Turkish forces weren't decisively turned back until over 150 years later, in 1683.  Look at a map of Europe, and you’ll see how deep into the heart of Central Europe Muslim troops had come. This was truly an existential threat to Christianity:

The expansion of the Ottoman Empire: Suleiman's conquests are in light brown

Leo attempted to rally Christendom to fight off this threat, but was quickly undermined by both secular and ecclesiastical enemies. Specifically, he tried to get the European Christian nation-states to stop killing each other, and defend each other against the Ottoman invaders.  Both this and a proposed Crusade failed. One of the major limitations he faced was financial, which is why certain abuses (like the selling of indulgences) grew worse under his watch.

In addition to the existential threat to Christianity, there were threats closer to home. No one needed to tell Pope Leo that internal reforms were needed in the Church. He’d already begun them after several cardinals attempted to assassinate him.  I mention both of these looming threats because it's true that abuses happened under Leo's watch: things occurred that shouldn't have occurred, like the sale of indulgences.  Some of these abuses even happened with his knowledge and permission (although fewer than one would think from reading anti-Leonine tracts). And it doesn't excuse it that Leo was pulling out all the stops in a last-ditch attempt to save Europe: sin is still sin, even if it's well-intentioned.  But it's easy to be a critic. Do any of Leo's critics honestly think that they would have performed better, given the crises Leo found himself enmeshed in?  

Dutch Liever Turks dan Paaps medallions,
in the shape of the Islamic Crescent.

In the midst of all of this, a German monk named Brother Martin Luther begins stoking populist and nationalist sentiments: the very sort of nationalism Leo was asking be set aside to defend Christianity. It would be like the Southern U.S. states seceding from the North during the War of 1812, while Britain is bearing down on Washington, D.C. Worse yet, Germany isn't some fringe on the hinterlands, but is right in the heart of the Europe Leo is trying to save.

Worse yet again, the early Reformers purposely played upon this threat of Islam. For example, the Protestant Dutch openly allied themselves with the advancing Ottoman army under the slogan Liever Turks dan Paaps (“Better Turkish than Papist”). So understand the early Reformation through that lens.  This wasn't simply a dispute over how quickly to clean up the internal filth within the Church: this was about subverting the head of the Church at a time when the Church was fighting for Her life.

II. The Lutherans and the Papacy

Were there problems within the Church? Absolutely. Leo himself didn’t dispute that. To my knowledge, no one did. And don't forget, Leo invited Luther to debate his 95 theses in Rome. When Luther refused, he sent Cardinal Cajetan to debate him in Germany. That's, frankly, incredible.  He didn't quash the conversation, he invited it, and was ready to explain which of Luther's Theses were wrong, and why.

It’s important to remember that Leo wasn’t always hated, even by the Reformers. For example, when the controversy over Luther’s 95 Theses first broke out, Luther turned to Pope Leo to settle the dispute. In a May 30, 1518 letter to the pope, he said:

Therefore, most holy father, I prostrate myself at your feet, placing myself and all I am and have at your disposal, to be dealt with as you see fit. My cause hangs on the will of your Holiness, by whose verdict I shall either save or lose my life. Come what may, I shall recognize the voice of your Holiness to be that of Christ, speaking through you.

From Passional Christi und Antichristi (1521),
one of Lucas Cranach the Elder's woodcuts
contrasting Jesus Christ with Pope Leo X (as the Antichrist)

This turned out to be false.  When the pope disagreed with Luther, Luther immediately denounced him as the Antichrist (see, for example, his November 1520 treatise Against the Execrable Bull of the Antichrist). This was just the tip of the iceberg. There’s a whole slew of Reformational art depicted the pope as the antichrist, or one of the figures from Revelation, depicting the Catholic Church as the Whore of Babylon, and so on.   And Leo was accused of all sorts of wild sins and crimes which any reasonable reader today can spot as slander.  For example, he's claimed to have denied the Deity of Christ, yet there's absolutely no evidence to substantiate this claim.

What had Pope Leo done to warrant such harsh treatment at Luther's hands?  He'd ordered Luther to recant on 41 of the 95 Theses. That is, after offering to address Luther's concerns personally, and after sending Cajetan to handle things, Leo responded as to which opinions could be held in good faith, and which couldn’t. He didn’t just condemn them all, nor did he condemn Luther for asking questions.  He gave a clear answer: the exact sort of answer we expect the pope to be able to give when someone raises a theological challenge.

Here we arrive at another point that often gets overlooked. It wasn’t as if Luther’s 95 Theses were all equally brilliant, even by modern Protestant standards.  After all, how many Protestants today agree that “the pope does excellently when he grants remission to the souls in purgatory on account of intercessions made on their behalf,” as Luther argued in Thesis 26 of his 95 Theses?

And when he says in Thesis 30, “no one is sure of the reality of his own contrition,” we’re hearing the pains of someone suffering from scrupulosity, not an accurate description of healthy Christian spirituality. When David offers up his “broken and contrite heart” in Psalm 51:17, he knows he’s contrite. So some of Luther’s theses were great, some were permissible views, and some (specifically, forty-one of the ninety-five) were outright wrong and needed to be recanted. Luther wouldn’t budge on any of them.

Ultimately, it came time to denounce Luther's errors.  But even here, Leo wasn't some giddy heretic-basher.  He expressed himself, rather, as a heartbroken father. From Exsurge Domine:

Pope Leo X

“As far as Martin himself is concerned, O good God, what have we overlooked or not done? What fatherly charity have we omitted that we might call him back from such errors? For after we had cited him, wishing to deal more kindly with him, we urged him through various conferences with our legate and through our personal letters to abandon these errors. We have even offered him safe conduct and the money necessary for the journey urging him to come without fear or any misgivings, which perfect charity should cast out, and to talk not secretly but openly and face to face after the example of our Savior and the Apostle Paul. 

If he had done this, we are certain he would have changed in heart, and he would have recognized his errors. He would not have found all these errors in the Roman Curia which he attacks so viciously, ascribing to it more than he should because of the empty rumors of wicked men. We would have shown him clearer than the light of day that the Roman pontiffs, our predecessors, whom he injuriously attacks beyond all decency, never erred in their canons or constitutions which he tries to assail. For, according to the prophet, neither is healing oil nor the doctor lacking in Galaad. 

But he always refused to listen and, despising the previous citation and each and every one of the above overtures, disdained to come.”

Leo offers up the cry of a desperate parent who feels like they’ve tried everything with a stubborn teenager. Certainly, some Catholics paid Luther back eye-for-an-eye.  When Luther used scatological language to describe King Henry, St. Thomas More used it right back at him.  But Leo stands out as someone who, for all his faults, rose above the pettiness of much of the Protestant-Catholic in-fighting.  It's hard to deny that he loved Luther, and truly wanted the best for him, and for the whole Church.  Again from Exsurge Domine:

It is our hope, so far as in us lies, that he will experience a change of heart by taking the road of mildness we have proposed, return, and turn away from his errors. We will receive him kindly as the prodigal son returning to the embrace of the Church. 

Therefore let Martin himself and all those adhering to him, and those who shelter and support him, through the merciful heart of our God and the sprinkling of the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ by which and through whom the redemption of the human race and the upbuilding of holy mother Church was accomplished, know that from our heart we exhort and beseech that he cease to disturb the peace, unity, and truth of the Church for which the Savior prayed so earnestly to the Father. 

It was in response to this overture that Luther denounced Leo as the Antichrist in November 1520.  And even then, even after Luther began to denounce Leo personally as the Antichrist, it wasn't until January of 1521 that Luther was finally excommunicated.  

Does this make Leo sinless in the whole affair? Certainly not.  In fact, his biggest failing seems not to have been permitting the sale of indulgences, but trying to save Christian Europe by his own diplomatic powers and negotiating skills, rather than simply hoping in God.  But the idea that Leo was some horrible monster that Luther just had to run away from is flatly untrue.  He was a flawed pope and a sinner, as all popes have been, certainly.  But the Antichrist?  Hardly.

How Should We Understand Islam?

I noticed yesterday that the hot dog vendor near my work was gone, and I asked him about it today.  He informed me that he's Muslim, and that he'd taken off yesterday to celebrate Eid ul-Fitr, the “Festival of Breaking Fast.”

Like Judaism, Islam uses lunar calendars for months.  (By the way, this is why St. Paul refers to weeks and months as “Sabbaths” and “New Moons”  in Colossians 2:16 -- because the new moon separated month from month, just as the Sabbath separated week from week).  Yesterday celebrated the end of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, which went from August 1st to the 30th.

Ramadan sounds pretty intense, not unlike the way Lent was (and in many parts of the Orthodox and Coptic world, is) celebrated:

During the month of Ramadan, adult Muslims engage in ritual fasting from sunup to sundown. This practice, Sawm, is one of the five pillars of Islam, and requires that individuals abstain from eating, drinking, smoking and sexual intercourse. Each evening, Muslims will break the fast at sundown with Iftar, a traditional meal often beginning with the eating of dates -- an homage to a practice of Muhammad.

Consider, then, my hot dog vendor.  For an entire month, he sat or stood in a cramped hot dog cart, making hot dogs for other people -- and being unable to eat even a bite of food all day.  And no matter how hot he got in his cart, or how much he sweated, he was unable to take even a drink.  Certainly, he could eat and drink when it got dark, and he was back home, but I imagine standing in the heat, over delicious-smelling food, that's a small solace.

Even on the toughest of days - Ash Wednesday and Good Friday - I've had the comfort of at least not working in a food cart, and being allowed plenty of hydration.  I was struck by this, and what a beautiful testament it was to the man's faith.  And it got me thinking about Islam, and how we understand that religion as Catholics.

Islam and the True God

The Catholic Church is clear that Islam teaches some faulty and outright false things about God, and that these threaten a man's ability to come to a saving faith, or to properly do the will of God.  But the Church is also clear that Islam believes false things about the true God, rather than believing things (true or false) about some other god.


To use an analogy: if  you worship Jesus, but think He's a catcher for the Yankees, you're probably worshiping a different Jesus.  So it's possible to follow after false gods -- the pagans worshiped demons (1 Corinthians 10:20), for example -- but it's also to follow after the true God with some false beliefs. So if you worship Jesus, but think He was a fisherman (instead of a carpenter), you probably just have a mistaken belief about the actual Jesus of Nazareth.

Similarly, Islam affirms the God of Abraham is the true God.  They are right in doing so, whatever other faults may exist.  Christians sometimes stumble over this: how can Muslims be worshiping the same God as us, when they claim He has no Son (Sura 19:35)?  The answer's easy: they're wrong about Him having no Son.  Likewise, Calvinists believe that God predestines some people to Hell.   Does that mean that they worship a separate god, one who actually does double-predestine?  Of course not.  They believe in the True God, they're just wrong that this True God predestines people for Hell.

Any time you're trying to follow the God of Abraham, you're trying to follow the true God.  He more or less says as much (Genesis 28:13).  You might do so imperfectly -- with serious, salvation-threatening errors about His Nature and His Will -- but that doesn't mean you're following someone else. And this is true whether you're Catohlic, Protestant, Mormon, Jewish, or Muslim. That doesn't mean that these are all equally good roads to God,or anything of the sort.  These groups aren't equally right, and many teach things which threaten your eternal salvation.  But like I've said, they're wrong about God, rather than being wrong (or right) about Ba'al, or Zeus, or Odin, or demons.

Government Outlaws Islam, Liberal Atheists Applaud

In a piece entitled “Nation Bans Minors From Entering Mosques,” the Huffington Post has reported that the authoritarian secular government of Tajikstan has outlawed minors from entering Islamic mosques, and requires everyone under 18 to attend secular school.  The crackdown on Islam is a not-subtle attempt to destroy his chief rivals, the Islamic Revival Party.

Having only seen the headline, I wasn't initially sure which country had clamped down so fiercely on freedom of religion.  Given this, I had certain expectations about how the article - and the comments - would read.  Certainly, if it were some Western European country which had effectively outlawed the Muslim religion, the Huffington Post reaction would have been that this demonstrates how dangerous the religious right and the Tea Party are.  That if it could happen there, it could happen here -- you can imagine how they would've gone.  But instead of some historically-Christian county, it was an authoritarian central Asian country with a majority-Muslim population.

When I first read the article, here were the top five comments:

1. Freedom from religion is a good thing.
2. God will take this country down.The reason America is going down is because God was kicked out of the classroom,­so the children have gone wild and so have the adults.
3. Lets just get rid of religion
4. It seems to me, that this President is attempting to do a GOOD thing !!
5. An excellent idea. Religion should be taught when the children are over 16. Only then they can judge if what they are taught makes any sense. You can brainwash small children. That can result in producing extremists­. You can believe in anything, but respect for those who think differentl­y must be part of any teachings.

That's right.  Out of the five most recent comments, four of them (from four different users) were praising a totalitarian government for outlawing religion.

Significantly, none of them said, “Outlawing Islam is good.”  That's the sort of comment the fringe-right would make, and be rightly denounced for by both the Huffington Post crowd, and sane conservatives -- it's base bigotry, it's un-American, it violates the First Amendment, etc.  Instead, each of the four (as well as a shocking number of other commenters) said things to the effect that “Outlawing religion is good.” Wanting to outlaw every religion?  No problem, at least based on the reactions I've seen so far.

If you pretend that all religions are equally bad / stupid / violent (whether it's the Catholics, the Quakers, or the Muslims),  you're apparently not a bigot at all.  As I've mentioned before, Frank Beckwith was ahead of the curve in observing this growing atheistic authoritarianism, noting that  from the way the mainstream media treats New Atheists (compared to anti-Muslim conservatives), “one can only conclude that the difference between a bigot and a respected intellectual is that the former rejects one less belief than the latter.”

Now, certainly, I'm not claiming that the random sampling of Huffington Post commenters are representative of every liberal.  Far from it.  But what I am saying is that the surprising number of “pro-trampling religion” comments shows a rising and troubling tide amongst atheists on the Left.

Osama bin Laden Killed

A word of sincere thanks to our president, and our men and women in uniform, for taking the fight to Osama, and winning. To know that the head of the sworn enemy of the United States is finally dead is a relief.  But the Vatican's response is a sobering reminder for all of us:

Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden will have to answer to God for having killed many people and exploiting religion to spread hate, the Vatican said on Monday.

Spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said that while Christians "do not rejoice" over a death, it serves to remind them of "each person's responsibility before God and men."

"Osama bin Laden, as everyone knows, had the grave responsibility of having spread division and hate among people, causing the deaths of an innumerable number of people and exploiting religion for these purposes," he said.

The Vatican has often condemned the concept of violence in God's name.

Lombardi also said the Vatican hoped that the death of bin Laden "would not be an occasion for more hate, but for peace."

In the words of Ezekiel 18:23 "Do I indeed derive any pleasure from the death of the wicked? says the Lord GOD. Do I not rather rejoice when he turns from his evil way that he may live?" Don't get me wrong. Osama bin Laden declared war, in a barbaric way, on the United States, and last night, he officially lost. Without a doubt, he got what he deserved.  It's just sad that it had to end this way.  In contrast, look at someone like Mosab Hassan Yousef, son of one of the founders of Hamas, who converted from Islam to Christianity.  That's the sort of thing which God rejoices over.

Why Trust the Apostles over Muhammad or Joseph Smith?

In response to Monday's post, Jon Anthony wroted:

If you take the Apostles' experiences of a Risen Christ as the starting point, then, I admit, the case for the Resurrection is very, very strong. But I'm not so sure Ludemann's confidence is well founded at all.

I mean, its based off the idea that the Apostles wouldn't have endured persecution for something they knew to be false. But doesn't this prove too much? Because these same people, for the most part, claim that the Golden Plates of Mormonism were just made up. 

And if it is true that people willing to endure persecution are such solid witnesses to their claims to have eyewitnessed truth, then what about the claims of the witnesses of these Golden Plates in Mormonism? Even if the plates were a forgery and the witnesses were tricked, what motivation would Joseph Smith have had for carrying on his claims in the face of persecution? If he had none, but did it anyway, why couldn't the Apostles have done the same? If they could have, then there is no reason to have confidence that the apostles had such experiences. 

I'm not saying the resurrection is ridiculous, only that it isn't proved, not even close, by this stuff.

This is a fair question.  When we say that the Apostles had no motive, other than the truth of the Resurrection, to undergo persecution and death, how would this not equally apply to the early Mormonism (LDS) -- or, for that matter, Muslims?  I suggest that there are two critical distinctions.

(1) Joseph Smith and Muhammad had Much More to Gain by Lying

A fair reading of the religious texts, and the histories, of Christianity, LDS, and Islam shows that folks like Joseph Smith had substantially more to gain than folks like the Apostle Thomas. In LDS, Islam, and a whole lot of other systems, the "Prophet" is afforded special privileges. Given that, the beneficiaries of these systems have a vested interest in defending them, even if there are associated risks. Lets look at all three:

A. Christianity
In the case of Christianity, it's true that the Apostles have a position of authority in the Church, sure, but there are no special privileges. They don't get to take more wives, etc., etc. In fact, as 1 Timothy 3 makes clear, church leaders are held to a higher standard than everyone else.  If you were making up a fraudulent religious system, this seems like the least sensible thing to do.

Additionally, look at the emphasis.  Almost all of it is upon Christ, who never writes a word.  It'd be much more suspicious if Jesus had written a bunch of stuff about how He was God and had risen from the dead. That's not what happened. Eyewitnesses recounted it, instead.  Of the Twelve Apostles, the vast majority of them left behind no writings at all.  Of those who wrote, many of them were bit actors in their own telling.  For example, how central are St. Mark or St. Luke or even the Apostle Jude?  St. Paul, the most prolific New Testament writer, has to constantly defend his own legitimacy, since he wasn't one of Jesus' first Disciples, by his own admission.

Of all the early Christians, Paul is closest to the "Prophet" model, in that he received a revelation directly of God, and derived his authority from that. But he's the further thing from self-aggrandizing.  Here's how he describes himself in 1 Corinthians 15:3-9

For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures; that He was buried; that He was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures; that He appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve. After that, He appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. After that He appeared to James, then to all the Apostles.  

Last of all, as to one born abnormally, He appeared to me. For I am the least of the Apostles, not fit to be called an Apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Remember that, as a Jew, Paul had been a rising star. He studied under one of the greatest Rabbis in Jewish history, and was already well established as a young man.  He sacrificed all of that for ... what?  The lifelong shame of having to say, "I was wrong -- I made a name for myself attacking you Christians, and you were the ones who were right all along," coupled with the fact he underwent repeated arrest, whippings, eventually was beheaded.

B. The "Latter-Day Saints" (Mormons)
Let me give you a few examples from the LDS.  First, appended to the Pearl of Great Price, there's an entire book just about Joseph Smith and his family. There's nothing similar in the New Testament -- the Apostles talk about Christ and the Church, and bring in their life experiences only to prove their points.  Second, one of the books Joseph Smith "found" contains a prophesy in which Joseph (son of Jacob) talks about the great seer who's going to come in the future named Joseph (2 Nephi 3:6-25).  It's obviously a reference to Joseph Smith himself -- he's written himself into the story, even though we see nothing about Joseph Smith in any of the Old or New Testament.  When there's a dispute between some of the early LDS, Joseph Smith receives another revelation that he's right and they're wrong, and that he's the boss of the guys he's feuding with (see D&C 30:7)  So LDS is much more aggrandizing of Joseph Smith than the New Testament is of the Apostles. Just read the Gospels and see with what esteem their discipleship of Christ is treated. On nearly every page, you see the Twelve making some embarrassing mistake or other. That, on its own, is evidence that Joseph Smith had much more motive to lie (and to stick with that lie, even under pressure).  Beyond this, Joseph Smith also became President of the Church and Mayor of Nauvoo. He was the final secular and religious authority.

But there's more. Doctrines and Covenants continually praises Joseph Smith, and D&C 132 permitted Joseph Smith to take extra "wives," and threatened Emma Smith (his actual wife) with damnation if she tried to stop him. That is, "God" threatened her by name.  So, by presenting himself as Prophet, Joseph Smith now can have as many women as he wants, and is considered the second (only to Jesus) greatest man in history. There are all kinds of motives to keep up the charade there.  The same can be said of the other men who were involved in promoting the LDS church.  I'm not in any position to say who were duped and who were devious, but giving that all men were allowed to cheat on their wives, again, the motive is there. They wouldn't exactly be the first men in history to create an elaborate cover story to hide the fact that they want to run around town with other women.

C. Islam
Likewise, look at the Qu'ran, in which huge chunks are Allah devoting praise upon Muhammad, and giving him special privileges.  Like Joseph Smith, he gets the privilege of infinite wives:

50. O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft- Forgiving, Most Merciful.

(Qu'ran 33:50).   Same thing as before. If you're the "prophet" and founder of the religion, you get ladies.  Like Joseph Smith, Muhammad suffered from some marital problems (the curse of multiple wives, it seems).  So "Allah" intervened again:

1. O Prophet (you who are the greatest representative of Prophethood)! Why do you forbid (yourself) what God has made lawful to you, seeking to please your wives. And God is All-Forgiving, All-Compassionate.  

2. God has already decreed for you (O believers) on the breaking of your oaths (to do what is not just and right, and the expiation thereof). God is your Guardian, and He is the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. 

(Qu'ran 66:1-2).  Muhammad really has to have his arm twisted into getting the privilege to have a bunch of wives, and the privilege to be able to make oaths and then renounce them. After this, by the way, there's a prophesy that if these women don't submit to him, they'll all go to hell and he'll get better wives.

(2) Joseph Smith and Muhammad Had Much Less to Lose

The key to the idea Jon's addressing is this.  People won't undergo torture and death for no reason.  And in the case of the Apostles, it's hard to surmise a plausible reason other than "they truly believed" as a motive for their willingness to suffer and die. After all, they almost run to martyrdom.  Compare this with Muhammad, who was never martyred, and Joseph Smith, who was martyred by surprise.

In Joseph Smith's case, he had started the Nauvoo Legion, a militia of 5000 men. Ultimately, he was arrested for this, and other forms of treason. He'd originally planned to flee the state, but his followers convinced him to turn himself in (for which he denounced them).  He then declared himself like a lamb going to the slaughter, which would have been much more impressive if he hadn't been planning on running away.  At this point, it was far from certain that the jury would even return a guilty verdict.  Nevertheless, Joseph Smith had at least two backup plans.  First, he had someone smuggle a gun to him in prison. And second, he planned on the Nauvoo Legion breaking him out of jail (again, how this is compatible with "lamb to the slaughter" is a bit beyond me).  Instead of the Legion, an anti-LDS mob showed up.  Joseph Smith shot two of them before being gunned down himself, as this Mormon apologetics website concedes.

Muhammad also lived by the sword, but much more successfully, managing to escape his enemies and die of illness.  Now, I'm not claiming that the mere fact that both "Prophets" moonlighted as killers automatically discredits them (although it's definitely a black mark).  But I am suggesting that they weren't simply turning themselves peacefully over for martyrdom, the way that the Apostles did. In other words, in neither case is there any real evidence that these men were up for dying for their faith.  And thus, no particular evidence that they believed their faiths.

Conclusion

LDS made Joseph Smith. Islam made Muhammad. Both went from being obscure figures to superstars within their own lifetimes.  They reaped the rewards of fame, glory, and an unlimited supply of adoring women. On the other hand, St. Paul was already a superstar within Rabbinical Judaism, a student of one of the most famous rabbis of all time, and he renounced his sole claim to glory to join what was viewed as a blasphemous and heretical sect. Then, he willingly went to his death, getting beheaded.

It's quite plausible to see why Joseph Smith might be willing to shoot his way out of jail to get back to the women and glory, or why Muhammad the emperor-prophet would be more than willing to slay those who got in his way. It's pretty unclear to me why the Apostles - again, with nothing to win and everything to lose by lying - would let themselves be tortured and killed by the Romans.

So the idea, then, is not that people will never suffer for a lie.  Rather, it's that people will never suffer for a lie for no reason.  People are, on the whole, pretty sane. If they have to go through a little persecution to keep the adoring following and the countless women, they might think it's worth it. I think the evidence permits one to think that this is exactly what happened with the early Mormon and Muslim leadership (not that you have to think this, but that it's pretty plausible). I don't see how a similar case can be made for orthodox Christianity, without distorting the historical record quite a bit.

UPDATE: In the comments section, Robert Ritchie adds two rather significant details I hadn't known:

1. Eight of the eleven alleged witnesses would eventually leave the Mormon church or be excommunicated (although some returned).  This includes all three of the first three witnesses, and the four Whitmers.  Put another way, all of the "witnesses" who weren't close relatives to Joseph Smith left or were forced out of Smith's church.
2. It's not entirely clear that the "witnesses" to the Mormon Golden Plates claimed to have witnessed the plates in an objective sense. Martin Harris and David Whitmer, two of the original three witnesses, described the plates at various points as having been a spiritual, not physical, event. That is, they weren't actually claiming to be eyewitnesses, but to have had trances and visions.

In researching what'd he said, I found a few other interesting details:

1. After the first three witnesses "saw" the golden plates, Joseph Smith had a "revelation" that no one else would see them. (D&C 5:11-14).  After this, Joseph Smith claimed that eight other people saw them. 
2. Martin Harris, one of the first three, denied that the last eight had actually seen the plates.  So the witnesses' stories are irreconcilably contradictory, and contrary to the alleged Mormon Scriptures themselves. 
3. Additionally, in this period, a number of the alleged witnesses attempted to use their status of witnesses to acquire positions of power.  Most notably, David Whitmer claimed that just as he'd seen the golden plates, he also had a vision that he was to leave the Mormon church and start his own church. Mormons believe Whitmer's first "vision" but claim the second one was a delusion or a hoax.Whitmer, and four other members of his family (all alleged witnesses to the golden plates) were excommunicated.

So there was plenty of motive to lie, little collaboration between witnesses, and outright allegations that the others were lying.  But even if everyone was telling the truth, it's not clear that they initially claimed to be describing an actual eyewitness account, instead of a mystical experience.


UPDATE 2: If you're interested, here are the eleven witnesses, starting with the first "Three Witnesses," the only ones initially recognized by Mormonism:

1. Oliver Cowdery, former "Assistant President of the Church," excommunicated for some time after a leadership struggle against Joseph Smith. May have denied the authenticity of the visions during this period, based upon an LDS poem asking if the Book of Mormon was not His Word simply "because denied, by Oliver?" Despite apparently joining Mormonism, he had a Methodist funeral.
2. Martin Harris, left Mormonism.  After Joseph's death, Harris became a Strangite, Whitmerite, Gladdenite, Williamite, and possibly a Shaker, before returning to Mormonism again.
3. David Whitmer, excommunicated. Tried to start his own church because he was a "witness," and claimed additional messages from God (messages universally rejected by LDS Mormons).
   
4. Christian Whitmer, excommunicated.
5. Jacob Whitmer, excommunicated.
6. Peter Whitmer, Jr., excommunicated.
7. John Whitmer, excommunicated.
8. Hiram Page, left the church.
9. Joseph Smith, Sr., Joseph's father. Served as the first "Presiding Patriarch" until his death, and was a Master Freemason.
10. Hyrum Smith, Joseph's brother. Served as the second "Presiding Patriarch" (after his dad) and second "Assistant President of the Church" (after Cowdery was excommunicated). Died before Joseph.
11. Samuel Smith, Joseph's brother. Was on the High Council. Died shortly after Joseph and Hyrum. According to William Smith (another Smith brother), he was poisoned by Brigham Young to stop him from becoming the new LDS President.