First of all, while it's true that "the foundation myths" of religions generally make it into that religion's "sacred documents," -- like as you mentioned, the virgin birth written about in the Bible...
...and yes, it's "so" that Joseph Smith's "first vision" account was later "canonized" within Mormon "scriptures"...
...but this account we're talking about on this thread made it "nowhere" into Mormon's official, canonized "scriptures..." -- so to place it on the same level as the "virgin birth" is a bit off-kilter.
The foundation myths of all religions are ridiculous to the non-believer. This one is no stranger than the notion of virgin birth or a talking snake and a magic apple. If one doesn’t believe, it all sounds literally unbelievable; if one does believe it sounds like gospel truth, literally.
Allow me to quote Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason (& then apply his comment to yours):
Source of this excerpt: Miracles or Myths
This reminds me of a comment I heard yesterday in a discussion about religious issues on Dennis Prager's show here in Los Angeles, noting that Friday, yesterday was Good Friday and also Passover. He accurately pointed out that the Exodus and Resurrection are the defining events of two of the world's major religions. They are not the highest of holidays but they are the most defining events. Then he said something rather interesting. Dennis said that he has callers that talk about these kinds of things that are so pregnant with religious significance and meaning--the resurrection and the Passover--but have said to him, "I have a hard time taking these stories literally." Prager said, "So what? It is the meaning that is most important." This point of view reflects comments that were made a number of times in this article, that it is not so much whether the event actually happened or not, it's the story or the spiritual truth that is communicated through the message. I think this is a profound misunderstanding. It comes into play in my comments on the notion of myth.
A myth is not the same as a fairy tale. You need to know this. Oftentimes, we think of it that way, but that is not what a myth is. A myth is a story. It's not true in the same way that a fairy tale is not true, so they are similar in that way, but they have a different purpose. A fairy tale is simply meant to entertain. A myth is a story meant to communicate a truth of life. The message has deep significance for the mysteries of the meaning of life.
So it seems that people are not concerned about the historicity of the events in the Bible because what is more important is not that they happened, but that they teach this deep life truth. The resurrection teaches about new life in Jesus. The chances of new beginnings. Power over death. Life after death. That's what the message is. Whether Jesus rose from the dead or not is quite incidental to the message of the resurrection story. The message is paramount. I think this is a false view. Certainly the apostles didn't have the belief that the message was more paramount than the history itself. In fact, the message was in the history. Without the history, there is no message. That was their point. So this view ignores the statements of those who wrote the Bible themselves.
Before this, Koukl was commenting on a Time Magazine article describing miracles of the Bible, and Time presented these miracles as a "mystery" -- prompting Koukl to essentially ask why Time didn't simply ask whether these miracles happened or not? Why were they presented as a mystery if they really happened? Isn't it at least important to raise the Q if they occurred or not?
So...let's ask that Q as applied to these two accounts:
(a) Did the virgin birth occur in history?
(b) Did Smith run three miles at top speed hauling a few hundred pounds of solid gold around? And then did he "translate" a nobody-heard of language that he didn't know?
In answering (a) the series of Q are:
(1) Did the Biblical writers present the virgin birth as a historical account? (Answer: Yes)
(2) Did the Biblical writers seamlessly attribute the virgin birth to divine intervention? (Answer: Yes -- the Holy Spirit "overshadowed" her)
(3) And: was the virgin birth written in the same mythical religious style as other indigenous religions? (Answer: no)
(4) Do even Mormon "scriptures" like the Book of Mormon claim the Virgin birth to be true? (Answer: yes)
Now let's compare these same similar series of Q to answering (b)...the series of Q being:
(1) Do the Mormon "scriptures" talk about Joseph's account of running with these gold plates -- the subject of this thread? (Answer: No...it was in other Mormon documents that even Mormons don't elevate as special sacred status)
(2) Does this "History of the Church" account attribute divine intervention for Smith that allowed him to run that fast carrying something that heavy -- hence giving glory to God and not man? (Answer: No)
(3) And: was this Mormon account written in the same mythical religious style as other indigenous religions -- as Irish leprachauns who were competing for buried treasure? (Answer: Yes: Traveling some distance after he left the road, he came to a large windfall, and as he was jumping over a log, a man sprang up from behind it, and gave him a heavy blow with a gun. Joseph turned around and knocked him down, then ran at the top of his speed. About half a mile further he was attacked again in the same manner as before; he knocked this man down in like manner as the former, and ran on again; and before he reached home he was assaulted the third time. Source: History of Joseph Smith by His Mother, Lucy Smith, pp.107-108).
(4) Do even Christian historical documents provide any reinforcement to Smith's claims about these gold plates? (Answer: no)
There ya go: You've got to dig deeper muir_redwoods if you're going to start comparing the foundation of Christmas to this Smith myth.
picky, picky, picky...
I think the question is, do you have any proof, other than faith, that it was a virgin birth?
To a non-believer, it would sound rediculous to say that your Savior was conceived by a virgin, because it is not a natural possibility.
The same with a snake convincing someone to eat an apple. Unless you are a Hoodoo practioner, you probably dont believe in anthropomorphism. You have to have faith that this account is true, because so far, we have never recorded another animal talking to a person in a human language.
It is the same with Mormons. They have faith that their documentation is correct. They cant find the gold plates, we couldnt find Jesus’ body.
If you denegrate someone’s faith because you think it is silly, you have to be welcome to them doing the same to you.
I think the question is, do you have any proof, other than faith, that it was a virgin birth?
To a non-believer, it would sound rediculous to say that your Savior was conceived by a virgin, because it is not a natural possibility.
The same with a snake convincing someone to eat an apple. Unless you are a Hoodoo practioner or old world relion practioner, you probably dont believe in anthropomorphism. You definitely dont believe it if you are a purely rational thinker, using empiricism. You have to have faith that this account is true, because so far, we have never recorded another animal talking to a person in a human language.
It is the same with Mormons. They have faith that their documentation is correct. They cant find the gold plates, we couldnt find Jesus’ body.
If you denegrate someone’s faith because you think it is silly, you have to be welcome to them doing the same to you.
I belong to neither church and have no use for any of the mythology that surrounds them. I have read a few thousand pages of Joseph Campbell's work on mythology and have a few college credits on the topic so I have a fair understanding of what constitutes a myth. As I am sure you understand the notion of a virgin impregnated by a god describes the Mithra cult or the cult of Dionysius both of which predate Christianity