The Testimony of the Eight Witnesses

[Daniel Peterson]

I could reasonably dismiss the three witnesses based on character

I noticed that one, too. My response was What??????

Joseph had witnesses to every major event. The restoration of the priesthood, the three degrees of glory, the restoration of various and sundry keys -- even the Kirtland temple dedication, where many recorded in their journals that they saw angels and other magnificent sights. None of which PROVE anything beyong question. But witnesses are something that true prophets seem to have, whether it be Moses, where 70 elders saw God and several million saw the fire and smoke on the mountain; Jesus, who was seen by Peter, James and John during the transfiguration on the mount, etc.

How many witnesses did Muhammad have? How many did Ellen G. White have? To think that entire religions would be based on just one witness is, to me, astounding. Even the revelation on priesthood in 1978 had the entire Qof12 as witnesses. President Kimball could have easily said he had a revelation and who in the heirarchy of the church would have opposed him? None. In other words, even when no witnesses are needed, there are many times witnesses because that's the way the Lord works. Critics may say they're not impressed, but I'm impressed, and that's all that matters to me. In this day and age when you can get that many people saying they heard an actual voice and felt powerfully the Spirit of God -- that's pretty remarkable.

This is a very important point.

Incidentally, the relatively new book Opening the Heavens, edited by John W. Welch, is, in part, a collection of scores and scores of eyewitness testimonials to revelatory events

[Froggie]

So if someone were to interview President Hinckley, and report it in the Ensign, you would have reason to question it based on the hearsay aspect? How about if someone found someone elses journal and published it, would you consider that to be hearsay?

I'm not interested in the court admissable evidence standard. I am interested in your rationale for establishing legitimacy in the written word.

Big green hugs,

Froggie

[Pahoran]

For Pahoran and Smac,

Please explain to me why you would have any reason to disbelieve the interviews Metcalf made with both Harris and Whitmer.  I could reasonably dismiss the three witnesses based on character, but have chosen not to for purposes of trying to find truth in it all.  Do you have any reason why I should suspect Metcalf is making the whole thing up?

Thanks.

Frog

As I'm reasonably sure you understand, that's not the question. We are not presented with a choice between perfect accuracy and complete fabrication, and to claim that we are is to disembowel a straw man. The problem with hearsay is not that people will make stuff up; it is that we don't have Martin Harris's own words. What we have is Mr. Metcalf's report of what he thinks Harris meant, or what he thought he heard Harris say. (Hence, "hearsay.") This is, at best, Harris filtered through Metcalf's (jaundiced) perceptions.

Here is a very simple exercise that you can do to find out for yourself how reliable hearsay is: get ten people to sit in a row. Show the first person a short sentence in writing, for example: "I am going to the movies on Saturday, will you come?" Don't let the others see the sentence, but get each person to whisper the message to the person next to them. Get the last person to say out loud what they heard. See how different it is to what was given.

You don't need to report back on the results here. We've all played this game at some time in our lives, and we know what the result will be. The last person will say something completely different to what you showed the first--and nobody had to make anything up. That is a complete red herring. Don't bring it up again.

I really must say that I despise nasty little insinuations like:

I could reasonably dismiss the three witnesses based on character

Really? I find it hilarious that some people here think it perfectly acceptable to defame dead Mormons, but will run howling to the mods if anyone dares to suggest that their character is anything less than simon-pure. Knowing at least as much as you do about Martin Harris and his various religious joinings, and David Whitmer and his touchy self-importance, I invite you to explain just exactly why their character flaws allow you to "reasonably dismiss" their lifelong testimonies. By all means let us know why Joseph Smith would be confident enough to excommunicate them when they fell out with him; how he would know that they could turn on him and yet maintain their testimonies; and why he was right to believe that. Please explain why their character flaws would keep them maintaining their testimonies throughout their lives and long after Joseph Smith died. Tell us exactly how said flaws account for two of them returning to the Church years after being excommunicated therefrom.

And after you've done all that, do please accept that you are never, ever, under any circumstances, ever, to do anything as hypocritcal as to complain about "Mormon apologists" using "ad hominem" arguments.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Froggie]

I could reasonably dismiss the three witnesses based on character

I noticed that one, too. My response was What??????

Joseph had witnesses to every major event. The restoration of the priesthood, the three degrees of glory, the restoration of various and sundry keys -- even the Kirtland temple dedication, where many recorded in their journals that they saw angels and other magnificent sights. None of which PROVE anything beyong question. But witnesses are something that true prophets seem to have, whether it be Moses, where 70 elders saw God and several million saw the fire and smoke on the mountain; Jesus, who was seen by Peter, James and John during the transfiguration on the mount, etc.

How many witnesses did Muhammad have? How many did Ellen G. White have? To think that entire religions would be based on just one witness is, to me, astounding. Even the revelation on priesthood in 1978 had the entire Qof12 as witnesses. President Kimball could have easily said he had a revelation and who in the heirarchy of the church would have opposed him? None. In other words, even when no witnesses are needed, there are many times witnesses because that's the way the Lord works. Critics may say they're not impressed, but I'm impressed, and that's all that matters to me. In this day and age when you can get that many people saying they heard an actual voice and felt powerfully the Spirit of God -- that's pretty remarkable.

This is a very important point.

Incidentally, the relatively new book Opening the Heavens, edited by John W. Welch, is, in part, a collection of scores and scores of eyewitnesses testimonials to revelatory events

Surely you are aware of the character assassinations made of the 3 witnesses by critics. I would be happy to send you information if you aren't. I'm not anxious to drag their characters through the mud on this board. I didn't realize that the Metcalf interviews would be so easily dismissed. I have seen every reason to think they are as legitimate as the testimonies.

For Cold Steel, why do you suppose modern day prophets/members have not been privy to such spiritual fireworks as in the early days?

Big green hugs,

Froggie

[Daniel Peterson]

Surely you are aware of the character assassinations made of the 3 witnesses by critics.

I am. And, like even most more or less respectable critics of the Church nowadays, I don't place much stock in them. Richard Anderson's meticulous multi-decade research into the character of the Witnesses, and similar work by Larry Morris and others, demonstrates them to have been men of, on the whole, exceptionally good reputation.

I didn't realize that the Metcalf interviews would be so easily dismissed.  I have seen every reason to think they are as legitimate as the testimonies.

If I'm ever on trial, and you're serving as a juror, I will consider that excellent grounds for appeal.

[Froggie]

I am a big believer in looking at all sides of a story in order to determine what the truth is. Selective viewing is just that, selective, and necessarily blinds one to the opportunity of a more accurate view. It is very very easy for a person to decide what it is they are going to think/feel/believe and then bolster their viewpoint with the evidence that supports that line of thinking, dismissing any other (possibly accurate) information that may threaten their line of thinking.

It's not so easy for a person to look objectively at information and perhaps modify their way of thinking if new evidence may suggest an alternate, more accurate way of thought.

I personally find the testimonies of the witnesses to be genuine. I, in no way, would consider any of these witnesses to be above reproach. In fact, Martin Harris, with his habit of changing religions every five minutes, makes me question not the legitimacy of his testimony about the plates, but about the passion of his testimony in general. In reading about his life and personality, he strikes me as a person who would feel as passionate about the truth of the orange juice he was drinking as much as gold plates.

Big green hugs,

Froggie

Edited to add the p.s. that I hope you believe in the power of prayer. You can ask for 1) Never to find yourself in a position to be going to trial and 2) Never to find Froggie in the jurors box

[Pahoran]

I am a big believer in looking at all sides of a story in order to determine what the truth is.  Selective viewing is just that, selective, and necessarily blinds one to the opportunity of a more accurate view.  It is very very easy for a person to decide what it is they are going to think/feel/believe and then bolster their viewpoint with the evidence that supports that line of thinking, dismissing any other (possibly accurate) information that may threaten their line of thinking. 

It's not so easy for a person to look objectively at information and perhaps modify their way of thinking if new evidence may suggest an alternate, more accurate way of thought. 

I personally find the testimonies of the witnesses to be genuine.  I, in no way, would consider any of these witnesses to be above reproach.  In fact, Martin Harris, with his habit of changing religions every five minutes, makes me question not the legitimacy of his testimony about the plates, but about the passion of his testimony in general.  In reading about his life and personality, he strikes me as a person who would feel as passionate about the truth of the orange juice he was drinking as much as gold plates.

Well, while you are so impartially considering this question from all sides, consider this:

It is a fact not in dispute that Martin tried to preach The Book of Mormon to every group he ever joined. How many times did he really "change religion" when he kept on carring the same beliefs around with him? Can you see the distinction between "changing religion" and "changing affiliation?" I put it to you that perhaps Martin didn't "change religion" at all; maybe he just liked to join a lot. Has it occurred to you that maybe if you sat down to have a glass of orange juice with him, you'd find him distractingly uninterested in the orange juice, and rather passionate about the golden plates, despite having been out of the Church for years?

Because that seems to be the way his contemporaries found him.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Daniel Peterson]

It is a fact not in dispute that Martin tried to preach The Book of Mormon to every group he ever joined.  How many times did he really "change religion" when he kept on carring the same beliefs around with him?  Can you see the distinction between "changing religion" and "changing affiliation?"  I put it to you that perhaps Martin didn't "change religion" at all; maybe he just liked to join a lot.  Has it occurred to you that maybe if you sat down to have a glass of orange juice with him, you'd find him distractingly uninterested in the orange juice, and rather passionate about the golden plates, despite having been out of the Church for years?

Because that seems to be the way his contemporaries found him.

Exactly. In fact, there's an article in the current issue of BYU Studies about Martin Harris's relatively brief service as a Strangite missionary in England. His Strangite handlers soon tired of him and managed to bundle him back to the United States, largely because he wasn't so much interested in preaching Strangism (a schismatic faction of Book of Mormon believers) as he was in preaching the Book of Mormon.

[Hyrum Page]

Can you see the distinction between "changing religion" and "changing affiliation?"

How I wish we could all see this distinction.

[Hyrum Page]

I can't understand why there is all this emphasis on Martin Harris. Degree of passion about a subject indicates that he was personally convicted of its truth, but of all the Book of Mormon witnesses he stands at the bottom of my list of those whom I would rely on or trust. By most standards he was quite a religious eccentric, and he was a man of dubious morals. If I were to meet a man of his character testifying passionately about some other matter of spiritual import, I would be heavily disinclined to believe a word he was saying.

[Mighty Curelom]

Nice one, Analytics. Let's rely upon legal technicalities to establish questions of fact.

You're missing (or deliberately avoiding) the overarching issue. While it could be said that much of the legal world is archaic, illogical and anti-intuitive, the core principles are based on sound reasoning. Hearsay isn't admissible in court because it's notoriously unreliable. Police officers have long known that the best way to get a witness statement is by separately questioning individual witnesses.

The issues brought up by Analytics are not mere "technicalities." They're sound principles based on hundreds of years of fact-finding.

[DonBradley]

These thoughts that I posted on the 3rd seem relevant to the issue of the merit of the Testimony of Eight Witnesses as legal evidence:

...the firsthand statements of the Eight Witnesses are uniform to the level of phrasing and lack further detail beyond their signed statement. Most of the extant recorded testimonies of these witnesses say nothing more than that they "saw and handled" the plates, and the remainder add no detail beyond that the plates were

golden, "curiously" worked, and engraved - i.e., they add no detail not present in

the published testimony. None of them report the physical location of the

experience, how they prepared for the experience, how the plates were presented to

their view, what was done with the plates afterward, what the plates looked

like (beyond "having the appearance of gold," being "of curious workmanship,"

looking ancient, and having engravings), how much they weighed.... These are

curious omissions given the number of witnesses and number of testimonies of this

supposedly very concrete, temporal, natural experience.

The formulaic nature of the Eight's testimony raises questions that those

studying their experience have yet to address. Neither apologists, such as

Richard Anderson, nor debunkers, like Dan Vogel, have dealt with the issue.

Why would the Eight recite a consistent formula, apparently not even varying

their wording, and never - at least in any of the numerous firsthand accounts

we have - offer details beyond those in their simple formal testimony? What

does such a pattern suggest?

Years ago, when I was first getting involved in studying the origins of the

"Mormon fundamentalist" (schismatic polygamist) movement, Michael Quinn offered

me some advice. He told me to look for formulaic wording from the witnesses

of the supposed "Eight Hour Meeting" in which John Taylor gave the sealing keys

to the later fundamentalist leaders. Such wording, he said, suggests a

conspiracy. Drawing on his experience with the often messy data of history, Quinn

offered a similar insight in his anonymous response to Jerald and Sandra Tanner:

"The selective requirement for inflexible standards of consistency is a stock

weapon in debate and the practice of Law to invalidate the testimony of your

opponent's witnesses. Yet perfect consistency is as often a trait of deception

as of truth, and truth is often relayed by inconsistent witnesses. The record

of human experience has rarely been free of ambiguity."

Though I was very much a believer at the time Quinn offered this advice, it

troubled me. I recognized even then that the firsthand testimonies of the Eight

Witnesses followed precisely the pattern Quinn suggested was indicative of

conspiracy. I wondered if the Eight might have been part of a conspiracy.

Subsequent research satisfied me that the Eight Witnesses did not

manufacture their experience as part of a conspiracy. But the issue of their

formulaic wording was one I held in the back of mind as meaning something.

In the past few years, I have found the limited and formulaic nature of the

testimonies of the Eight Witnesses most powerfully explained on the hypothesis

that they, like Martin Harris in D&C 5, were instructed to limit their

subsequent testimonies to the specifics included in their published statement.

This 1829 revelation to Martin Harris is the origin of the very idea

of witnesses to the Book of Mormon - the first intimation that anyone besides

Joseph Smith would be able to receive a visual "witness" of the existence of

the plates. In the

revelation, Harris was instructed what to say in testifying of the experience

and explicitly commanded to limit his testimony to what he was told to say:

then he shall say unto the People of this Generation Behold I have

seen the things & I know of a surety that they are true for I have seen them &

they have been shone unto me by the Power of God and I command him that he shall

say no more except I have seen them & they have been shone un[to] me by the

Power of God & these are the words which he shall say

We have no comparable instructions to the Eight Witnesses. But, in point of

fact, we have no revelation or instructions to the Eight Witnesses at all. No

extant revelation tells Joseph Smith to show the plates to eight witnesses,

tells who these witnesses should be, or tells how the plates should be shown. Yet

there seems little doubt, especially given that revelation prohibits Joseph

Smith from showing anyone the plates without express divine command (D&C 5:3),

that Joseph claimed revelation with respect to the Eight Witnesses and their

experience. Thus, we have no extant revelation regarding the Eight, but there

was revelation. And given that the revelation introducing the idea of three

witnesses expressly commanded and delimited what they were to say in bearing

testimony, it seems reasonable to expect, or at least find it quite likely, that

the revelation introducing the idea of eight witnesses did the same.

So, here we have a likely hypothesis that would explain otherwise anomalous or

conspiratorial-looking elements of the testimonies of the Eight Witnesses.

This hypothesis is not necessarily incompatible with belief in the experience

of the Eight, any more than the presence of similar instruction to Martin

Harris is incompatible with belief in the experience of the Three. And, in fact,

if this explanation is rejected, one is left with the next most likely

explanation for the uniformity being one that is incompatible with such belief

- conspiracy.

While not necessarily incompatible with faith, the probability of such

instruction (in the case of either the 3 or the raises fresh issues regarding

their experiences. If the Eight were commanded to testify using certain words,

and limiting what they said to certain specifics, then it is quite possible that

the words employed in their testimonies may not have been the words they

would otherwise have used to properly or best convey what they experienced, and

that the additional detail they withheld would have qualified the impression

offered in their extant testimonies that they saw and handled the plates

uncovered and in a wholly natural, everyday sense.

Whatever its ultimate explanation, the unnaturally restricted range of

phrasing and detail in all of the many extant firsthand testimonies of the Eight

Witnesses also limits and restricts their usefulness and power as historical

evidence of just what occurred immediately prior to the signing of their

testimonies. Since in form and content their individual testimonies appear to not be

independent, but either agreed-upon between them or established by external

fiat, they provide far weaker evidence than they otherwise might that Joseph Smith

"ha[d] got the plates of which hath been spoken."

Don Bradley

Copyright January 3, 2006, Don Bradley

[smac97]

Mighty Curelom,

> You're missing (or deliberately avoiding) the overarching issue.

==Actually, it's people like Analytics who are avoiding the issue. The issue is the credibility of the Book of Mormon witnesses. If they are credible, then their testimony constitutes evidence in favor of the LDS Church's claims about the origins of the Book of Mormon.

==So, what's the best way to deal with this "overarching issue?" In my opinion, we should look to work done by trained historians and see what residual evidence can be gleaned from the historical record that helps us better ascertain the credibility of these witnesses. Richard L. Anderson has written what is probably the most relevant resource on this subject: Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses. So any earnest inquiry as to the credibility of the witnesses should quickly lead to that book, right?

==Wrong. If we are to rely on Analytics as our guide, that is. Nope, he pays no attention to Anderson's work. Instead, he asks us to retroactively apply technical procedural and evidentiary rules in use in U.S. courtrooms in 2006 to written statements made more than 150 years ago.

==Are these rules readily applicable to religious disputes? No. Are they ever used to ascertain the credibility of witness statements more than 150 years old? No. But, does talking about these rules sound cool? You bet! And does such a discussion distract our attention from where it should be? Yep.

> While it could be said that much of the legal world is archaic, illogical and anti-intuitive, the core principles are based on sound reasoning.

==Okayyy. Illogical but sound. Anti-intuitive but reasoned. Thanks for clearing that up.

> Hearsay isn't admissible in court because it's notoriously unreliable.

==Haphazardly applying hearsay rules to non-judicial situations is not a good idea. Keep in mind that the very definition of hearsay (as used in the law) requires that the statement is being offered in court.

> The issues brought up by Analytics are not mere "technicalities." They're sound principles based on hundreds of years of fact-finding.

==LOL. Analytics certainly is bringing up "technicalities." And it's odd that you juxtapose "technicalities" with "sound principles," as if they are mutually exclusive categories. They aren't.

==My criticism is that Analytics is trying to press into service legal principles that are not particularly useful to the "overarching issue" at hand: the credibility of the Eleven Witnesses. Retroactively applying highly technical contemporary rules of evidence to statements made more than 150 years ago is a near-useless exercise. Instead, we should cut to the chase and start discussing what evidence we have that clarifies the credibility of the Eleven Witnesses. I submit that the first step in that process is to explore the evidence found in Richard L. Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses.

==How 'bout it?

-Smac

[Mighty Curelom]

Retroactively applying highly technical contemporary rules of evidence to statements made more than 150 years ago is a near-useless exercise.

You guys are too much. Really.

"Highly technical contemporary rules"? There's nothing "highly technical" about it. If you want the truth of an event, you question the witnesses separately. What you don't do is write up a single statement for 8 witnesses and have them all sign it--and you especially don't have the suspect write the statement for the witnesses. Imagine if cops used that approach. Would it make any sense for a police investigator to ask all the witnesses of an event to get together and sign a statement drafted by the person under investigation? You don't have to be a legal scholar to see how absurd such a practice would be.

Again, court rules for the admission of evidence aren't purely arbitrary. There are reasons for them; they've been developed over hundreds of years of trial and error (no pun intended), and they represent the best, most reliable means of determining fact.

(BTW, the "archaic, et al" things I was refering to are things like starting court sessions by shouting "oye, oye, oye!" or the apparent fetish lawyers have with latin. But neither of those things affect the core principles that western justice is based on.)

[smac97]

Mighty Curelom,

> You guys are too much. Really.

> "Highly technical contemporary rules"? There's nothing "highly technical" about it.

==Um, yes, they are. Do you know what the definition of hearsay is (under the Rules of Evidence, that is)? Do you know that hearsay is deemed to not be hearsay in some circumstances? Do you know what those circumstances are? Do you know what the exceptions to the hearsay rule are? Do you know how they are applied?

==I have a "Hearsay Handbook" that I downloaded from Westlaw while I was in law school. It's a 5-meg Word document. With the smallest margins possible, and size 8 font, this handbook still takes up 600 pages. 691,079 words. And then there was my Evidence class in law school, about 1/3 of which was spent just on hearsay. And then there's the literally hundreds of thousands of pages available in any law school (in the form of hornbooks, treatises, digests, law review articles, etc.) devoted to explaining hearsay.

==Or how about this flowchart I developed as a tool for working out hearsay issues:

==Would you care to discuss this flowchart, MC? Can you even follow it?

=="Highly technical" is exactly what the hearsay rule is. To say otherwise is to, well, appear to be clueless.

-Smac

[why me]

Sometimes people point out that of the witnesses, some were related. But I know I wouldn't falsely testify for my brother or uncle, or even my best friend (and friends are probably more likey to be pawns of conspiracy than family members, I think). You also have to find out what interests, if any, the witnesses might have had, financially or otherwise.

It's not a matter of just eight witnesses, or three. Joseph had witnesses to every major event. The restoration of the priesthood, the three degrees of glory, the restoration of various and sundry keys -- even the Kirtland temple dedication, where many recorded in their journals that they saw angels and other magnificent sights. None of which PROVE anything beyong question. But witnesses are something that true prophets seem to have, whether it be Moses, where 70 elders saw God and several million saw the fire and smoke on the mountain; Jesus, who was seen by Peter, James and John during the transfiguration on the mount, etc.

How many witnesses did Muhammad have? How many did Ellen G. White have? To think that entire religions would be based on just one witness is, to me, astounding. Even the revelation on priesthood in 1978 had the entire Qof12 as witnesses. President Kimball could have easily said he had a revelation and who in the heirarchy of the church would have opposed him? None. In other words, even when no witnesses are needed, there are many times witnesses because that's the way the Lord works. Critics may say they're not impressed, but I'm impressed, and that's all that matters to me. In this day and age when you can get that many people saying they heard an actual voice and felt powerfully the Spirit of God -- that's pretty remarkable.

Cold Steel

True, so true cold steel but you see the mormons who left the church cannot see this point...no they can't. By seeing your point, they need to do a rethink about why they left the church in the first place. And that is a HUGE reversal to make.

I can hear the naysayers...froggie says that she is searching for truth...no not really...froggie is searching for validation that she has made the correct decision and so have many others. But likewise so are we all.

For a mormon turned critic, ones needs to have an arsenal of contradictory 'evidence' and one must also attempt to block out all 'evidence' to the contrary.

If not, the whole perfect photo begins to burn in the fire and become common ash. We have eleven witnesses and more witnesses for the restoration of the priesthood. But this does not matter. For the critic needs to find imperfections in character...which by the way...is completely possible...for who after all, is perfect!

[charity]

Have you limited the discussion to the one statement that appears in the Book of Mormon as the testimony of these witnesses? Or can you enter into evidence every other statement ever made by those witnesses also?

[Hyrum Page]

Joseph had witnesses to every major event.

Including the First Vision and the visitations of the angel Moroni? Or do these not count as "major events"?

But witnesses are something that true prophets seem to have, whether it be Moses, where 70 elders saw God and several million saw the fire and smoke on the mountain . . .

Just what did these people see? Is it only explicible in the terms the Bible sets? How do we know they did see it? How do we know they were even there?

How many witnesses did Muhammad have? How many did Ellen G. White have? To think that entire religions would be based on just one witness is, to me, astounding.

Ah, so here we embark on the "my religion is better than your religion according to the criteria I have invented" theme. What beautiful creatures we humans are.

[why me]

Joseph had witnesses to every major event.

Including the First Vision and the visitations of the angel Moroni? Or do these not count as "major events"?

But witnesses are something that true prophets seem to have, whether it be Moses, where 70 elders saw God and several million saw the fire and smoke on the mountain . . .

Just what did these people see? Is it only explicible in the terms the Bible sets? How do we know they did see it? How do we know they were even there?

How many witnesses did Muhammad have? How many did Ellen G. White have? To think that entire religions would be based on just one witness is, to me, astounding.

Ah, so here we embark on the "my religion is better than your religion according to the criteria I have invented" theme. What beautiful creatures we humans are.

Actually Hyrum, you have just made my point. Critics such as yourself cannot and will not give credit where credit is due. Instead, you throw more bombs into the field. It would have been great if you would have addressed the person making the statement...the argument itself.

But you cannot do this. can you? If JS had 11 witnesses to witness the first vision...you know and I know...that you would not believe the testimonies of those 11 witnesses. It is not possible for you do so and so...your point is moot.

Anyone can counter logic with illogic. Anyone can critique a statement. But to totally dismiss the people who had the privelage to witness these visitations is an injustice to those people. But you know that already...don't you?

[Jaybear]

MC:

There's nothing "highly technical" about it. If you want the truth of an event, you question the witnesses separately. What you  don't do is write up a single statement for 8 witnesses and have them all sign it--and you  especially  don't have the suspect write the statement for the witnesses.

SMAC:

==Um, yes, they are. Do you know what the definition of hearsay is ....

Once again Smac, you have missed the point.

What MC describes is leading the witness, not hearsay.

How complicated its it to expect witnesses to testify to what they saw, heard and felt, in "thier own words," not in the words carefully chosen by the party presenting the witnesses.

Charity:

Have you limited the discussion to the one statement that appears in the Book of Mormon as the testimony of these witnesses? Or can you enter into evidence every other statement ever made by those witnesses also?

Of course they are relevant. Frankly, for the reasons noted by MC, it substantially more credible to hear the desciption offered by the witntesses in thier own words. Particulary if those words were expressed before they were asked to endorse the published statement.

Surely, this event warranted a full description in a letter home, or a jounal entry. THose made at the time of the event would be more probabative of what actually happened than the canned statement.

Likewise if they routinely kept a journal or corresponded with loved ones, and they never bothered to mentioned this historic event, that would be probative as well.

I have asked Peterson if there were any such contempraneous statements, he simple referred to a book written by a true believer defending the witnesses.

So. Are their any such statements?

[Jaybear]

Actually Hyrum, you have just made my point. Critics such as yourself cannot and will not give credit where credit is due. Instead, you throw more bombs into the field. It would have been great if you would have addressed the person making the statement...the argument itself.

What you fail to grasp is that by "critics" you are refering to people who, depsite the witness testimony don't believe the story. We are not minions in Satan's army out to subvert the truth, we genuinely and honeslty don't find the witnesses statements at all credible.

It really not that complicated. If JS had real golden plates, he could have done much much better to prove it, than bringing in 11 friends and family members to inspect the plates, and have them sign a joint statement he or Oliver prepared.

But I give him credit. He did just enough to convice those that aleady believe or that want to belief. But to the skeptical, the whole process reeks of a conspiracy. Perhaps JS should get credit for inventing the infomercial. Its the same concept. You stack your audience with friends, family, and people on your payroll, and they offering glowing but scripted testimonials, so you can sell your product. Here the product was the BofM. I beleive it was published for resale, was it not?

[Froggie]

I'm interested in knowing how y'all feel about the authenticity of the Harris/Tiffany interview? As unreliable as Metcalf?

http://www.xmission.com/~research/about/docum4.htm

Big green hugs,

Froggie

[Froggie]

Sometimes people point out that of the witnesses, some were related. But I know I wouldn't falsely testify for my brother or uncle, or even my best friend (and friends are probably more likey to be pawns of conspiracy than family members, I think). You also have to find out what interests, if any, the witnesses might have had, financially or otherwise.

It's not a matter of just eight witnesses, or three. Joseph had witnesses to every major event. The restoration of the priesthood, the three degrees of glory, the restoration of various and sundry keys -- even the Kirtland temple dedication, where many recorded in their journals that they saw angels and other magnificent sights. None of which PROVE anything beyong question. But witnesses are something that true prophets seem to have, whether it be Moses, where 70 elders saw God and several million saw the fire and smoke on the mountain; Jesus, who was seen by Peter, James and John during the transfiguration on the mount, etc.

How many witnesses did Muhammad have? How many did Ellen G. White have? To think that entire religions would be based on just one witness is, to me, astounding. Even the revelation on priesthood in 1978 had the entire Qof12 as witnesses. President Kimball could have easily said he had a revelation and who in the heirarchy of the church would have opposed him? None. In other words, even when no witnesses are needed, there are many times witnesses because that's the way the Lord works. Critics may say they're not impressed, but I'm impressed, and that's all that matters to me. In this day and age when you can get that many people saying they heard an actual voice and felt powerfully the Spirit of God -- that's pretty remarkable.

Cold Steel

True, so true cold steel but you see the mormons who left the church cannot see this point...no they can't. By seeing your point, they need to do a rethink about why they left the church in the first place. And that is a HUGE reversal to make.

I can hear the naysayers...froggie says that she is searching for truth...no not really...froggie is searching for validation that she has made the correct decision and so have many others. But likewise so are we all.

For a mormon turned critic, ones needs to have an arsenal of contradictory 'evidence' and one must also attempt to block out all 'evidence' to the contrary.

If not, the whole perfect photo begins to burn in the fire and become common ash. We have eleven witnesses and more witnesses for the restoration of the priesthood. But this does not matter. For the critic needs to find imperfections in character...which by the way...is completely possible...for who after all, is perfect!

Do you believe in universal truth? It might appear by your statement, that all people search for validation rather than truth, that you do not feel universal truth is a thing that can be known - or is a thing that is typically not sought after.

Just curious.

Big green hugs,

Froggie

[why me]

Sometimes people point out that of the witnesses, some were related. But I know I wouldn't falsely testify for my brother or uncle, or even my best friend (and friends are probably more likey to be pawns of conspiracy than family members, I think). You also have to find out what interests, if any, the witnesses might have had, financially or otherwise.

It's not a matter of just eight witnesses, or three. Joseph had witnesses to every major event. The restoration of the priesthood, the three degrees of glory, the restoration of various and sundry keys -- even the Kirtland temple dedication, where many recorded in their journals that they saw angels and other magnificent sights. None of which PROVE anything beyong question. But witnesses are something that true prophets seem to have, whether it be Moses, where 70 elders saw God and several million saw the fire and smoke on the mountain; Jesus, who was seen by Peter, James and John during the transfiguration on the mount, etc.

How many witnesses did Muhammad have? How many did Ellen G. White have? To think that entire religions would be based on just one witness is, to me, astounding. Even the revelation on priesthood in 1978 had the entire Qof12 as witnesses. President Kimball could have easily said he had a revelation and who in the heirarchy of the church would have opposed him? None. In other words, even when no witnesses are needed, there are many times witnesses because that's the way the Lord works. Critics may say they're not impressed, but I'm impressed, and that's all that matters to me. In this day and age when you can get that many people saying they heard an actual voice and felt powerfully the Spirit of God -- that's pretty remarkable.

Cold Steel

True, so true cold steel but you see the mormons who left the church cannot see this point...no they can't. By seeing your point, they need to do a rethink about why they left the church in the first place. And that is a HUGE reversal to make.

I can hear the naysayers...froggie says that she is searching for truth...no not really...froggie is searching for validation that she has made the correct decision and so have many others. But likewise so are we all.

For a mormon turned critic, ones needs to have an arsenal of contradictory 'evidence' and one must also attempt to block out all 'evidence' to the contrary.

If not, the whole perfect photo begins to burn in the fire and become common ash. We have eleven witnesses and more witnesses for the restoration of the priesthood. But this does not matter. For the critic needs to find imperfections in character...which by the way...is completely possible...for who after all, is perfect!

Do you believe in universal truth? It might appear by your statement, that all people search for validation rather than truth, that you do not feel universal truth is a thing that can be known - or is a thing that is typically not sought after.

Just curious.

Big green hugs,

Froggie

I think that it depends on the tone of the post. You do seem to make sweeping genealizations about the church. I haven't found those generalizations to be the case in my own situation. But perhaps they are your experiences.

But I do feel that in a way we are all searching for some sort of validation. But for an lds person, validation can be difficult to come by on the fair boards. Every conept is challenged and put through the ringer by a critic. But for the critic I have this feeling that the post is just that: a way to validate his or her belief system. And this is why the critique is so strong and at times very speculative as fact.

I can ask the question: what is truth? But that question was also put to Christ. I guess the answer to that question is that truth is found in faith, (in that something which makes us click as humans.)...whatever kind of faith that such truth is found in.

[Hyrum Page]

Actually Hyrum, you have just made my point. Critics such as yourself cannot and will not give credit where credit is due.

I have become accustomed to bracing myself for a pound of bologna every time I see a statement that begins with "actually . . ." I find that I am not disappointed here. Would you care to define what kind of critic you see me as being? I see myself as a person who was being critical of the argument. What is your view of my activities?

Evidently I am one of those "critics" who "cannot and will not give credit where credit is due." If you were to spend your time reviewing my posts, I think you will see that I do give credit where credit is due. Most recently Daniel Peterson criticized my reading of his characterization of angelic visions and pointed to the vision of Nephi in 1 Ne. 11 as an example of an angelic "multi-media extravaganza." I reconsidered my position and agreed that he was correct.

So, do you stick by your statement that I am incapable of giving credit where it is due?

Instead, you throw more bombs into the field.

Actually, I was asking whether the contention that "every major event of the Restoration" had witnesses to it was not problematized by the fact that some key events [First Vision, appearances of Moroni to JS] did not have such witnesses.

If JS had 11 witnesses to witness the first vision...you know and I know...that you would not believe the testimonies of those 11 witnesses. It is not possible for you do so and so...your point is moot.

What an incredibly arrogant assumption! How is that you know what I think of the 11 witnesses to the Book of Mormon? I have made comments about Martin Harris, and I think they are fair comments. I merely indicated that I would not trust a man of his character under most circumstances.

How is my point moot when my point is to question the validity of a theory of religious truth that is contradicted by the facts of the Restoration of the Gospel? There were no witnesses to Joseph Smith's First Vision, yet this is the inaugural event of the opening of this Dispensation.

Anyone can critique