127 replies to this topic

[charity]

Dan Vogel didn't want to discuss this on the NHMN thread, so here it is.

The Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol 14, #1, 2005 contains an article by Richard Lloyd Anderson, "Attemps to Redefine the Experience of the Eight Witnesses."

In the NHMN thread, Vogel says he is not presuaded that Anderson has adequately dealt with a report by Thomas Turley that John Whitmer had made a statement indicating that the experience of the Eight Witnesses was some kind of spiritual experience, which Vogel likens to a group hallucination.

Since John Whitmer on a number of other occasions described a physical experience, handling, hefting, turning pages, etc.,  how much reliance should be placed on a second hand account to discredit all the others?

[Uncle Dale]

charity, on Jan 1 2006, 03:39 PM, said:

Dan Vogel didn't want to discuss this on the NHMN thread, so here it is.

The Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol 14, #1, 2005 contains an article by Richard Lloyd Anderson, "Attemps to Redefine the Experience of the Eight Witnesses."

In the NHMN thread, Vogel says he is not presuaded that Anderson has adequately dealt with a report by Thomas Turley that John Whitmer had made a statement indicating that the experience of the Eight Witnesses was some kind of spiritual experience, which Vogel likens to a group hallucination.

Since John Whitmer on a number of other occasions described a physical experience, handling, hefting, turning pages, etc.,  how much reliance should be placed on a second hand account to discredit all the others?

Unfortunately, David Whitmer is not of much help, when we try to figure out just what
his brother John's experiences were; so looking to David for answers will probably
just muddy the waters. Unlike David, who gave a number of conflicting statements.
John Whitmer said very little about the "plates." Probably all that is recorded as his
own recollections and second-hand accounts of his recollections, can be summarized
here in a single FMB posting.

So, perhaps the place to begin would be by listing all of the John Whitmer statements,
including his joint-statement in the 1830 BoM and what he had to say in his "history,"
(as the first Church Historian).

Anybody care to lay out the textual sources, so we can examine the "evidence?"

Uncle Dale

[Mighty Curelom]

Did Oliver Cowdery really walk into a cave in the Hill Cumorah and see stacks and stacks of gold plates?  Would you scoff if someone suggested that such a thing didn't literally happen?  

Believers like to state this topic in a certain way--"What, did Joseph hypnotize the witnesses and induce a hallucination so real that none of them would ever deny it??  Where did Joseph learn how to hypnotize people?" (as if hypnotism is more absurd than angels walking around with gold plates......)

But it's really not that crazy.  Joseph effectively selected the most credulous, fantasy prone people of a credulous, fantasy prone bunch.  If you put an ad in the paper that said "I just dug up some gold plates and I need a scribe so I can translate them by use of my magic interpreter stones," what kind of people do you think would show up?  Well, you'd probably get people like David Whitmer, who before meeting Joseph claimed he'd seen the Devil in person, not to mention Jesus in the form of a deer.   And really, how hard would it be to convince someone who lived in a fantasy world of their own imagination that they'd seen some gold plates?

Modern gurus perform the same tricks with their self-selected followers.  Do some reading on cults and charismatic gurus, and you'll find the same kinds of fantastic stories.

[Daniel Peterson]

Wow, MC.  That's a remarkably cheap and easy dismissal of the Witnesses.

We have a very great deal of material about them, their reputations, their characters, etc., but, hey, who needs it?  A facile, summary brushing-off will do the trick.

For those who might actually care to seriously engage the Witness testimonies, the locus classicus is Richard Lloyd Anderson's book Investigating the Witnesses of the Book of Mormon.

Lyndon Cook's collection of David Whitmer Interviews is also valuable, as is Richard Anderson's article in the current issue of the FARMS Journal of Book of Mormon Studies.

[Dan Vogel]

Charity,

Quote

Dan Vogel didn't want to discuss this on the NHMN thread, so here it is.

The Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol 14, #1, 2005 contains an article by Richard Lloyd Anderson, "Attemps to Redefine the Experience of the Eight Witnesses."

In the NHMN thread, Vogel says he is not presuaded that Anderson has adequately dealt with a report by Thomas Turley that John Whitmer had made a statement indicating that the experience of the Eight Witnesses was some kind of spiritual experience, which Vogel likens to a group hallucination.

Since John Whitmer on a number of other occasions described a physical experience, handling, hefting, turning pages, etc., how much reliance should be placed on a second hand account to discredit all the others?

I don�?¢â?¬â?¢t have time to respond fully at the moment. I checked the FAIR site for Anderson�?¢â?¬â?¢s essay but couldn�?¢â?¬â?¢t find it.

It�?¢â?¬â?¢s not a matter of either physical or spiritual. I believe it was both. The plates were handled while covered or in a box and the sight was spiritual. So any of the witnesses could say the saw and handled the plates and unless someone asked them specifically what happened you would probably make the false conclusion that there experience was totally natural. Anderson needs to explain Theodore Turley�?¢â?¬â?¢s report of John Whitmer saying he saw the plates by �?¢â?¬�??supernatural power.�?¢â?¬�? In my essay in American Apocrypha, I give other sources and reasons for my conclusion. Assuming the Testimony of Eight Witnesses describes a purely natural encounter with the plates is a mistake. Before Martin Harris saw the plates and the angel, he said he had hefted the plates many times and saw them as plainly as anything, though at the time they were covered with a cloth. I would argue that the Eight Witnesses�?¢â?¬â?¢ experience was similar.

[Uncle Dale]

Dan Vogel, on Jan 1 2006, 05:59 PM, said:

It�?¢â?¬â?¢s not a matter of either physical or spiritual. I believe it was both. The plates were handled while covered or in a box and the sight was spiritual. So any of the witnesses could say the saw and handled the plates and unless someone asked them specifically what happened you would probably make the false conclusion that there experience was totally natural. Anderson needs to explain Theodore Turley�?¢â?¬â?¢s report of John Whitmer saying he saw the plates by �?¢â?¬�??supernatural power.�?¢â?¬�? In my essay in American Apocrypha, I give other sources and reasons for my conclusion. Assuming the Testimony of Eight Witnesses describes a purely natural encounter with the plates is a mistake. Before Martin Harris saw the plates and the angel, he said he had hefted the plates many times and saw them as plainly as anything, though at the time they were covered with a cloth. I would argue that the Eight Witnesses�?¢â?¬â?¢ experience was similar.

Perhaps you are correct, Dan -- But the "Testimony of the Eight Witnesses" reads as
though they were saying that they had turned over "as many of the leaves as the
said Smith had translated," and did so "with their hands."

Perhaps the statement was carefully worded, in order to be ambigious -- as your
explanation of things might apply to witnesses who handled a covered bundle, and
only "saw the engravings thereon" as a man might "see" a city he was coming to,
in his foresight, even though he did so "through a mountain."

If John Whitmer later clarfied his subscription to this statement, by saying he had
handled the plates, turned the leaves, and seen the engravings thereon, up to the
point that JS had thus far "translated," then that would be an important clarification.

Did John ever say that -- or anything similar, that we know of?



Uncle Dale

[maxrep12]

I have always thought the "Handling" of the gold plates, while wrapped in cloth, was a fickle and compromised manifestation to have one bare witness of.

[Dan Vogel]

Uncle Dale,

Quote

Perhaps you are correct, Dan -- But the "Testimony of the Eight Witnesses" reads as
though they were saying that they had turned over "as many of the leaves as the
said Smith had translated," and did so "with their hands."

Note that they didn�?¢â?¬â?¢t say the turned each leaf. Harris said the witnesses hesitated to sign the testimony. That might be among the reasons.

Quote

Perhaps the statement was carefully worded, in order to be ambigious -- as your
explanation of things might apply to witnesses who handled a covered bundle, and
only "saw the engravings thereon" as a man might "see" a city he was coming to,
in his foresight, even though he did so "through a mountain."

What we know about the Testimony of Three Witnesses should make us cautious about trying to recreate what happened to the eight by reading the published testimony alone. If we had only the Testimony of the Three and not their subsequent statements, we might assume that all three were together when they had their vision. But we know Harris saw them in a separate vision. Etc.

Quote

If John Whitmer later clarfied his subscription to this statement, by saying he had
handled the plates, turned the leaves, and seen the engravings thereon, up to the
point that JS had thus far "translated," then that would be an important clarification.

Did John ever say that -- or anything similar, that we know of?

Wilfred Poulsen�?¢â?¬â?¢s interview with John Whitmer in the 1880s is the clearest statement of the witnesses handling the plates �?¢â?¬�??uncovered�?¢â?¬�? (I think it says), but this interview is unreliable. A case can be made for Poulsen making the testimonies more physical and following what he thought happened. His interview with David Whitmer has the three together at their vision, and David complained about Poulsen�?¢â?¬â?¢s reporting of his interview. Unfortunately, John was dead when Poulsen published his interview. According to Poulsen, John claimed that the 8 witnesses were shown the plates in the Smith home 4 at a time. This is extremely doubtful since Lucy Smith was in the house when the 8 left and later returned from the Smith grove and reported their experiences.

[cdowis]

>Harris said the witnesses hesitated to sign the testimony.

Oh, really.  And the references to this statement?

Or are you talking about *Burnett's* rendition of what Harris said, "in public".  I assume that you are able to give us multiple witnesses to that statement, from those present "in public".  Certainly such a statement would have caused a stir, and others would have made reference to such an admission.

Does the apostate Burnett stand alone in recording that "public" statement?

Just curious what you are willing to accept as "evidence", since you are so particular in accepting evidence.

[Boy Named Sue]

Daniel Peterson, on Jan 1 2006, 05:45 PM, said:

Wow, MC.  That's a remarkably cheap and easy dismissal of the Witnesses.

We have a very great deal of material about them, their reputations, their characters, etc., but, hey, who needs it?  A facile, summary brushing-off will do the trick.

For those who might actually care to seriously engage the Witness testimonies, the locus classicus is Richard Lloyd Anderson's book Investigating the Witnesses of the Book of Mormon.

Lyndon Cook's collection of David Whitmer Interviews is also valuable, as is Richard Anderson's article in the current issue of the FARMS Journal of Book of Mormon Studies.

do you have the links?

[Dan Vogel]

Cdowis,

Quote

>Harris said the witnesses hesitated to sign the testimony.

Oh, really. And the references to this statement?

Or are you talking about *Burnett's* rendition of what Harris said, "in public". I assume that you are able to give us multiple witnesses to that statement, from those present "in public". Certainly such a statement would have caused a stir, and others would have made reference to such an admission.

Does the apostate Burnett stand alone in recording that "public" statement?

Just curious what you are willing to accept as "evidence", since you are so particular in accepting evidence.

You should tell us why you question Burnett�?¢â?¬â?¢s account? Warren Parrish substantiated parts of Burnett�?¢â?¬â?¢s account, but not the particular part you are asking about. To question Burnett you are going to have to do better than call him an apostate. Harris was also an apostate so you might as well dismiss Harris by the same method. I would agree some of the word choices are perhaps Burnett�?¢â?¬â?¢s, but I have no reason to question the content �?¢â?¬�?¦ and neither do you.

It did cause a stir, and both Hyrum Smith and John Whitmer gave responses. So Burnett was not misquoting Harris.

For me, evidence is the most defensible interpretation of a piece of data. For example, John Whitmer�?¢â?¬â?¢s 1839 statement to Turley that he saw the plates by �?¢â?¬�??supernatural power.�?¢â?¬�? The most defensible interpretation of that statement becomes evidence, which then is used to support a thesis. Mine happens to be that the 8 witnesses saw the plates in vision.

[cinepro]

Quote

But it's really not that crazy. Joseph effectively selected the most credulous, fantasy prone people of a credulous, fantasy prone bunch.

There's really no mystery as to how it was done.  It was written down in great detail in D&C Section 5.

[Cold Steel]

Any historian will tell you the problems with history. The accounts of the witnesses hang together very well and one really has to scrape to get something to the contrary. Journalists misquote all the time, even when they're trying to be accurate; imagine an untrained or biased third person account!

About the cave, I don't have problems believing a cave might exist somewhere. They're always finding things in caves and such. But don't plug in a mental image from Indiana Jones. Such a place, if it exists, probably is far different than what Hollywood would produce and undoubtfully elusive. I remember seeing the chamber of the Jaguar at Chizen Itza. To hear someone describe it might make it sound very implausible; however, seeing it puts it into perspective.

Cold Steel

[cdowis]

>You should tell us why you question Burnett�?¢â?¬â?¢s account? Warren Parrish substantiated parts of Burnett�?¢â?¬â?¢s account, but not the particular part you are asking about. To question Burnett you are going to have to do better than call him an apostate.

Your response is interesting, considering what you regard as "evidence".

Let us compare the NHM evidence vs Brunett's specific statement on what Harris said.

Let us compare those two items and see why you unabashedly accept the one -- quoting Harris as if it were fact,  but your extreme reluctance to accept the other.

====The issue is not Burnett.  The issue here is the award winning author and his objectivity in accepting the one and rejecting the other.====

Let us compare the strength of the evidence for Burnett's statement, dear chap, which you so heartily accept, with the evidence for the veracity of the BOM, since you are so unwilling to admit that there is "any evidence" for the BOM, which brought cries of utter astonishment from members of our group.

Again, according to Bennett, Harris made this statement publically.  But we have not one shred of evidence to back him up in this statement.  No other record of this public statement, certainly which would have caused saints and sinners alike to buzz with such an admission.

Nothing to back this guy up.  And you rush to accept his word.

But when it comes to the Book of Mormon, you ask for a tower with the name Zarahemla written on it, in Hebrew no less.

Edited by cdowis, 02 January 2006 - 07:42 PM.

[Daniel Peterson]

Boy Named Sue, on Jan 2 2006, 09:24 AM, said:

Daniel Peterson, on Jan 1 2006, 05:45 PM, said:

Wow, MC.  That's a remarkably cheap and easy dismissal of the Witnesses.

We have a very great deal of material about them, their reputations, their characters, etc., but, hey, who needs it?  A facile, summary brushing-off will do the trick.

For those who might actually care to seriously engage the Witness testimonies, the locus classicus is Richard Lloyd Anderson's book Investigating the Witnesses of the Book of Mormon.

Lyndon Cook's collection of David Whitmer Interviews is also valuable, as is Richard Anderson's article in the current issue of the FARMS Journal of Book of Mormon Studies.

do you have the links?

There's still a lot in this world that needs to be read in things called "books" and "journals," on something called "paper."

[cougarfan]

Remember there is no such medical condition as group halucination.  If eight men claim they saw something, they actually saw something.

What would the difference (proof wise) be between a literal spiritual manifestation and a literal physical manifestation.

[AKS]

cougarfan, on Jan 2 2006, 08:02 PM, said:

What would the difference (proof wise) be between a literal spiritual manifestation and a literal physical manifestation.

I would say quite a lot.

edite to add: I hope your not trying to get into a semantics argument over the meaning of manifest.

Edited by AKS, 02 January 2006 - 09:26 PM.

[Programmer]

Mighty Curelom, on Jan 1 2006, 04:53 PM, said:

Did Oliver Cowdery really walk into a cave in the Hill Cumorah and see stacks and stacks of gold plates?  Would you scoff if someone suggested that such a thing didn't literally happen?  

Believers like to state this topic in a certain way--"What, did Joseph hypnotize the witnesses and induce a hallucination so real that none of them would ever deny it??  Where did Joseph learn how to hypnotize people?" (as if hypnotism is more absurd than angels walking around with gold plates......)

But it's really not that crazy.  Joseph effectively selected the most credulous, fantasy prone people of a credulous, fantasy prone bunch.  If you put an ad in the paper that said "I just dug up some gold plates and I need a scribe so I can translate them by use of my magic interpreter stones," what kind of people do you think would show up?  Well, you'd probably get people like David Whitmer, who before meeting Joseph claimed he'd seen the Devil in person, not to mention Jesus in the form of a deer.   And really, how hard would it be to convince someone who lived in a fantasy world of their own imagination that they'd seen some gold plates?

Modern gurus perform the same tricks with their self-selected followers.  Do some reading on cults and charismatic gurus, and you'll find the same kinds of fantastic stories.

Says who?? You???

Uh huh!!

I just loved your deep erudition, your scholarly insight, and your utterly ridiculous speculation palmed off as fact. That may pass as briiliant in the curelom household, but where I come from, If you don't know, then just say you don't know.

I really dig Dales posts, because he doesn't tread where history is not. You seem to follow in the mold of a certain Brody character who was fasinated with making up stories about what went on in the minds of certain people.

I don't know what to be more amazed about: A man seeing God, angles and golden plates.... or your ability to mind read people from 200 years ago.  

[DonBradley]

I have always found the Testimony of Eight Witnesses one of the most compelling arguments in favor of Joseph Smith's claims. The published testimony comes across as so naturalistic, and it did involve a fair-sized group, rather than just an individual or two, who might be easy to deceive. The Eight Witnesses were one of the pieces of evidence for Mormonism I clung to the longest.

I think Dan Vogel has done a pretty good job raising questions about the literal, physical nature of the experience and proposing a naturalistic explanation. I don't think his arguments offer a complete or sufficient explanation, and I think in places he over-reaches - such as in concluding that the Testimony provides no more evidence than does religious experience in general, as though eight men saying they saw and lifted a 60 pound object were equivalent to someone claiming to know that the plates existed because they had a burning in the bosom. But I think his approach, informed as it is by the actual practices of stage magicians and confidence men, provides an important angle and new insights.

As Dan V. has not tired of pointing out, Joseph Smith was a treasure seer before he was a prophet, and therefore the typical practices of treasure seers and other occult practitioners should be examined for their possible relevance to Joseph Smith's actions, first as treasure seer, and then as prophet, roles not sharply divisible in his case.

The Testimony of Eight Witnesses has been approached by apologetically (e.g., by Richard L. Anderson) and debunkingly, by Dan; but it awaits a more even-handed analysis. There are, for instance, intriguing, and probably illuminating, questions that can be pursued regarding the composition and wording of the Testimony and regarding the uniformity and lack of detail in all extant tellings of the Eight's witness event.

Don Bradley

[Jaybear]

DonB:

Quote

I have always found the Testimony of Eight Witnesses one of the most compelling arguments in favor of Joseph Smith's claims.

I have always found the testimony to be  the most overrated arguments.  

The statements are second hand, ie prepared by one person to be endorsed by others.  These were not contemporaneous first hand accounts of eight individuals.  I don't even see dated and notorized signature of the witnesses.

Did any of these witnesses keep journals?   If so what did they write on the day or week of this supposed event?  Did they write to others to tell of this remarkable opportunity?  Journals and letters would have more meaning than a formal statement prepared by an unkown third party.  

The statement lack any foundational basis.  When, where and how did this witness take place.  When and who wrote the statement.  Why are there no signatures?  Combine the lack of foundation evidence with contradictory accounts of who was present, the plates being wrapped, and the use of spiritual eyes.  

But most importantly, the statements are not presented by independent unbiased  observers.   Why not bring the plates to a judge, a professor, a doctor, the mayor, a priest.   Was there not a local assay office to take the plates for examination?  

I guess we are to either believe that God want us to have witnesses, but only those whose credibility can be question to require faith or that the others, in league with the adversary would have denied the truth.  

Sorry, but the "testimony" of the eight witnesses does not add any credibilty to an otherwise incredible story.